Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [Lords]

SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

DUDLEY EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY (CREMATORIUM) BILL [Lords]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION (ST. ANDREWS UNIVERSITY)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to present a Petition to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. It is signed by 1,250 students of St. Andrews University, commencing with the President of the Students' Representative Council. It is a university known to both of us, and particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, by reason of a recent happy occasion.
The Petition is to the effect that the provision in the University of St. Andrews Bill for the change in status of the Rector be not carried into effect since it is contended that the Rectors have never proved unworthy of their high office, and that the student body greatly value the privilege of electing the chairman of the University Court, which privilege they claim they have not abused. The Petition concludes:
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Board, Wales and Monmouthshire

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to ensure that a separate electricity board is set up for Wales and Monmouthshire in place of the existing two electricity boards which now serve the area.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): As at present advised I am not contemplating changes in the existing organisation.

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the views widely held in Wales that a separate Welsh board will give the Principality a better and cheaper supply of electricity? Has he noted that there is in Wales a predilection for an organisation such as that of the gas industry, which has provided Wales with an extremely efficient board of its own, largely organised and manned by Welsh people?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, but the problems of gas and electricity are considerably different. Technical considerations leading to cheapness and efficiency resulted, at the time, in the setting up of this organisation with a division under two boards.

Publicity Arrangements

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the obligation placed by Parliament upon the nationalised electricity supply industry to balance its outgoings by its revenue, he will relax his restriction upon promotional advertising by the industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am at present discussing future publicity arrangements with the gas and electricity industries.

Mr. Palmer: Would the Minister not agree that it is most unfair that the electricity supply industry, which is in practical commercial competition with the other fuel and power industries, and has certainly very strong technical competition, should have a restriction placed upon its advertising policy while the solid fuel industry should be entirely free?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Consumers' Councils

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many domestic coal consumers' councils are now in existence.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: One, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the very considerable number of complaints in Leicester and district and elsewhere not only about the quantity and quality but also about the price of coal? Does he not think it necessary to have local consumers' councils so that people have the opportunity of making their complaints and having them dealt with on the spot?

Mr. Lloyd: At present, my view is the same as that of my predecessor in thinking that it is not necessary.

Stocks, Birmingham and Macclesfield

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reason for the shortage of coal for householders in Birmingham; and what steps he proposes to take to make it possible for the household ration to be allotted at the correct time.

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the shortage of coal stocks in the Macclesfield area; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Stocks are always low at this time of the year, but I am not aware of any special difficulties. I am, however, making further inquiries and will write to the hon. Members.

Mr. Wyatt: Since the Minister and I both have an interest in Birmingham, is he not aware that, for some time past,

many domestic coal users have been waiting for weeks for their ration to be honoured and that the only firm that has been honouring the ration consistently is the Co-operative Society?

Mr. Lloyd: I will make further inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that this also applies in other areas, especially where coal is being mined? Will he ask his regional officers to pay special attention to this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that coal merchants in Birmingham have stated that people were not receiving their proper allocation of coal during the winter, despite the arrangements for summer stocking? Is he aware that thousands live in rooms in Birmingham and are unable to stock coal? Would it not be better to stock the coal in coal-yards, from which deliveries could be made in those cases?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I hope that that will be done.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the best safeguard against difficulties at this time of the year, summer stocking by householders who have accommodation for coal? Does not that enable merchants to honour the pledge which they have given that they will supply first those who have no space for stocking?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS (PRICE REDUCTION)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he expects to conclude his review of the prices of petroleum products; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has now completed his review of the price of pool petrol; and what his decision is.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Petroleum products are now in ample supply and I have decided that there is no longer any need


to control their prices. I understand that reductions in prices will be announced by the companies within the next two days.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last part of that reply was inaudible to me, at any rate?

Mr. Lloyd: It was that I understand that reductions in prices will be announced by the companies within the next two days.

Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement that he has made—that there will be a reduction in prices within the next two days —will be particularly welcome because so many people believe that artificially high tanker rates, which have virtually settled the price of petrol, have been pushed up by the big companies who themselves own the majority of the world's tankerage?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is a fact that competition is the best safeguard.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not the case that there is ample free tankerage capacity to keep prices down?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken by his Department to develop atomic power for industrial uses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: My Department collaborates in all appropriate ways with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who is the Minister responsible for all kinds of development of nuclear power.

FUEL AND POWER (CONSUMER CHOICE)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will ensure that, in carrying out the recommendations of the Ridley Report on National Fuel Policy, the principle of free consumer choice is maintained between gas, electricity and solid fuel for domestic use.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, sir.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware that that answer will give great satisfaction to the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Ridley Report, while supporting competition between these industries, pointed out that such competition would be possible only where price was properly related to costs? What is being done in that connection, particularly in regard to the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and I am in touch with the nationalised industries on it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister bend his efforts to ensuring that gas, electricity and solid fuel are each used for the purpose for which they are most efficient? Will he recognise that there is a great deal to be done?

HOME-GROWN TIMBER (STOCKPILING)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Materials to what extent his Department is assisting by stockpiling or in other ways, in the disposal of homegrown timber blown down in the recent gales.

The Minister of Materials (Sir Arthur Salter): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to a Question from the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 20th April as to the special licensing measures designed to assist the disposal of home-grown timber and to the statement made on 19th February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as to stockpiling. The purchases by the Railway Executive will substantially affect the problem of blown timber for the stockpile. I propose, therefore, to make a statement on this question in the autumn.

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Materials the Government's policy regarding a national stockpile of timber and the level at which the present stock is to be maintained.

Sir A. Salter: It is the policy of the Government to hold a reserve of timber, well distributed over the country, which would be available, in addition to stocks


held by the trade, in any emergency in order to save shipping space, on which timber imports make heavy demands. In the national interest the level of strategic reserves is not disclosed.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend taking note of the amount of timber now available and becoming available in Scotland? Will he do what he can to sustain the market for homegrown timber by using the resources at his disposal to stockpile some of this Scottish timber?

Sir A. Salter: Yes, Sir. I am looking at the situation carefully, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise from my answer to the previous Question that the purchases now being made by the Railway Executive have a very great influence on the whole of the problem to which he refers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's former reply, that he proposed to make a statement in the autumn, may we take it that his Ministry will be permitted to continue until that date?

BARRISTERS (PRACTISING LICENCES)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to remove the powers to license barristers to practise from the benchers of their respective Inns of Court.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): No, Sir.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Attorney-General aware that a practising barrister has been suspended from practising at the Bar because of a political speech he made, in which he commented on certain aspects of the Lord Chief Justice's work? Is this not an extremely undesirable precedent and a restriction of political freedom of speech?

The Attorney-General: As the gentleman in question has still the right of appeal to a special legal tribunal, consisting of the Lord Chancellor and a committee of judges, I am most anxious not to express any opinion on the matter. But in order to answer that question, I think that I am entitled to say that the suggestion that the offence in question

was a political offence was entirely unjustified. In the comments which have been made in the Press I think that there has been a considerable degree of misunderstanding, largely due to the fact that the remarks which were made by the barrister on the occasion in question were, perhaps not unwisely, not reported in full by any except a very few newspapers, and certainly by none of the London papers. Therefore, it may be that the honourable Gentleman and others have a wrong impression of the offence that was found to have been committed. Beyond that I do not think that I ought to say anything at this stage.

Mr. Shinwell: Was not the comment by this barrister—on the Lord Chief Justice—one that had a political implication? If so, why should this process be permitted? May I ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that hon. Members on his own side of the House are very much opposed to the "closed shop," he could make a beginning by abolishing it in this particular instance?

The Attorney-General: According to the report certain comments of the nature referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were made, but in the newspaper report which I have before me reference was also made to another matter, in these words:
Unfortunately I am precluded from expressing in public the universal concensus of opinion in the legal profession about the manner in which he now conducts criminal trials.
I should not have thought that that was a political utterance.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: My hon. and learned Friend having gone so far, would he now be in a position to say upon what basis the charge against this barrister was actually framed?

The Attorney-General: I am not at liberty to make a statement. That is a matter for the benchers of Grays Inn, and I have no control over them whatever.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has gone so far, it is surely but a step to let us know what the actual charge was. Cannot we have that?

The Attorney-General: What I should be prepared to do to assist the House—as the report which was published in the Press of the decision of the benchers of Grays Inn was of a very truncated character and I do not know whether they published everything that was issued—would be to make a request that the entire decision be published.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say what conceivable objection there is or may be to an expression of an opinion—on a public platform, at a public meeting, as part of a political campaign—by a barrister or any other free citizen about the conduct of criminal trials by the Lord Chief Justice or anybody else?

The Attorney-General: I certainly should not agree that it would be desirable that anyone, above all a member of the Bar, should make a suggestion that the universal concensus of opinion in the legal profession was that the Lord Chief Justice conducts criminal trials improperly.

LEGAL AID SCHEME

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Attorney-General how many persons not of British birth have been assisted in litigation under the legal aid scheme; and at what estimated total expense to the British taxpayer.

The Attorney-General: I regret that these figures are not available

Brigadier Medlicott: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether any other countries have given reciprocal rights to British subjects abroad?

The Attorney-General: There are about 20 legal aid conventions with foreign countries, under which each party agrees to give subjects of the other country the same facilities for legal aid as are available to its own nationals.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the anxiety felt in the legal profession and amongst the general public at the emphasis upon litigation which has resulted from the introduction of the legal aid scheme in advance of the legal advice

scheme; and if he will now initiate the introduction of the legal advice scheme and thus encourage the settlement of disputes by discussion rather than by litigation.

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are aware of these views. The question of bringing into force the provisions relating to legal advice is one of the matters we are considering with a view to improving the scheme as a whole; but I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking at present.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the learned Attorney-General aware that many people are of the opinion that the legal advice section of the scheme should have been brought into operation before the section which enables people to go to litigation, if only for the reason that nine times out of 10 the best legal advice is to keep out of litigation?

The Attorney-General: I am well aware of that fact.

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind that there are two difficulties about this scheme at the moment? The first is the difficulty which Members of Parliament have in knowing who is responsible for each particular Department of the Administration—the Attorney-General, the Assistance Board, local law societies, and so on? The second is the fact that there have been an increasing number of complaints about the high levies for costs which are being made upon individual contributors of very small means. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an opportunity, at some time, of having a general debate on this otherwise excellent scheme?

The Attorney-General: I shall certainly see that those matters are considered. I should also like to say that whoever else is responsible it is news to me that the Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of the scheme.

Mr. Hale: On a point of explanation. I was referring to the difficulties of Members of Parliament, and the Attorney-General is the only person of whom we can ask questions.

PASSPORTS, WALES (ISSUE)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will provide facilities for passports to be obtained at Cardiff, Swansea and at a convenient centre in North Wales.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): No, Sir. I am advised that there would not be enough local passport work to justify the expense.

Mr. Gower: Does not the Minister agree that this is very unfair to Wales? Similar facilities are obtainable in many English provincial centres. Will not my right hon. and learned Friend do something in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is true to say that such facilities are available in many English provincial centres. So far as I know there is only one in England and one in Scotland. I think that the question is a technical one of whether the expense can be justified.

Mr. Gower: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

AUSTRIAN TREATY (DEPUTIES' MEETING)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to call a meeting of the deputies to consider further the Austrian Treaty.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are in consultation with the French and American Governments with a view to calling an early meeting of the deputies. On Saturday last I discussed this question with Mr. Dulles and M. Bidault. I hope shortly to be able to give the House more definite information.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister of State aware that an early meeting of the deputies would be very welcome, especially in view of the statement contained in an article in "Pravda" at the week-end that it should be possible to reach agreement on the basis of existing agreements?

Mr. Lloyd: I have studied carefully that portion of the statement in "Pravda." I quite agree that it is a matter which affects this decision and, as I said, I hope quite soon to be able to give the House more information.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

News (British Dissemination)

Mr. Linstead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British authorities in Germany restrict the dissemination of news to the Press through official channels to a limited circle of correspondents; and what steps he is taking to bring this practice to an end.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is not the practice of the British authorities in Germany to restrict the dissemination of news through official channels to a limited circle of Press correspondents. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Linstead: If I send my right hon. and learned Friend particulars of a case where this is alleged, will he be good enough to look into it?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly.

Nazi War Criminal (Release)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds Wilhelm Bergmann, a Nazi war criminal, was released from the prison at Werl after having served less than half his 15 years' sentence.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Bergmann, whose sentence was fixed at 10 years by the confirming officer, was released on expiry of sentence, full remission for good conduct having been earned and pre-trial custody taken into account.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say exactly what the position is in regard to these men when they are released? Is an assurance sought from the West German authorities that these men will not in future obtain any kind of political or military leadership within Germany?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

HUNGARY (MR. SANDERS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to the Note from the Hungarian Government, in regard to Her Majesty's Government's statement on the continued imprisonment of Mr. Edgar Sanders.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Minister at Budapest has been instructed to reject the Hungarian Government's protest and to point out that they could not expect Her Majesty's Government to hold views less strong than those which my hon. Friend expressed in this House on 14th April.

Mr. Davies: While I am sure that the House will welcome that statement, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to point out to the Hungarian Government that the best evidence that the accusations made in this House were unjustifiable would be for the Hungarian Government to permit a representative of Her Majesty's mission in Budapest to visit Mr. Sanders in prison?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree. That might be a very good thing, and that suggestion has repeatedly been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Genocide Convention (Ratification)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many nations have now ratified the United Nations Convention relating to genocide; which of our Dominions are included in this number; and what reasons now impel him to refrain from ratifying the Convention.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Forty-one States have now become parties to the United Nations Convention on Genocide, including Australia, Canada and Ceylon. Accession by Her Majesty's Government to this Convention requires the introduction of legislation; and I am not yet able to say whether and if so when this can be done.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this Convention was actually passed in 1948, at

the instigation of our own representatives at the United Nations? I have asked Questions time after time and, on 30th January, 1952, the Foreign Secretary said:
His Majesty's Government hope shortly to reach a decision on this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 169.]
This is a very important matter, which deals with a horrible crime. Is the Minister prepared to deal with it and, if so, when?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Member that this is an important matter, in respect of which this country, by its example, has done very well in the past. There are certain technical difficulties relating to the nature of the legislation required, but I can assure the hon. Member, as I have done before, that I am doing the best I can to see that this legislation is prepared and that an opportunity may be found for a discussion in the House.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do I understand that the reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is that there is no reason against ratifying except technical difficulties?

Mr. Lloyd: We take the view—it may be old-fashioned—that we should not ratify a convention unless we are prepared to carry it out in the spirit and the letter. Carrying this Convention out in the letter means that legislation will have to be introduced. That legislation is, of course, rather complicated; we are doing our best to see that it is prepared, and when it is prepared it will be brought before the House.

Mr. Janner: This is a really important matter, otherwise I would not pursue it. It is now five years or more since this legislation was first considered. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when it is likely to be introduced?

Mr. Lloyd: As soon as practicable.

Status of Refugees Convention (Ratification)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the resolution forwarded to him urging that the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees should be brought into force without delay; and what action Her Majesty's


Government propose to take in the near future in regard to the ratification of this Convention.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Full consideration has been given to the resolution in question and Her Majesty's Government agree that the Convention is an excellent instrument for the establishment of the legal and social rights of refugees in those countries which have signed it.
Subject to certain reservations as provided for in Article 42, Her Majesty's Government propose to present an Instrument of Ratification to Parliament in due course. Consultations for this purpose are still in progress with the Governments of overseas territories for the conduct of whose international relations Her Majesty's Government are responsible.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that ratification will depend upon other circumstances? If so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what those are? Will he do all in his power to persuade other Governments to agree to ratification so that this matter can be settled at an early date?

Mr. Lloyd: I would not admit that the inference the hon. Gentleman has drawn in the first part of his supplementary question is correct. So far as the second part is concerned, we certainly think that this is a good instrument.

BURMA (CHINESE NATIONALIST FORCES)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement regarding Sir Gladwyn Jebb's representations at the United Nations about the presence of Chinese Nationalist forces on Burmese territory.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the House will now be aware, Sir Gladwyn Jebb made a statement to the First Committee in which he expressed the utmost sympathy for Burma and proposed that these troops should either leave Burma or submit to internment.
I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government at the constructive attitude adopted by the General Assembly, which has passed unanimously, with only one abstention, a resolution which,

I hope, will help to facilitate a settlement of this problem.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Government's action in this respect is a very welcome initiative indeed? Can he tell us what is to happen to these people now? What is the next step in getting them away from Burma?

Mr. Lloyd: We have played some part in having passed a resolution, which I think is a helpful resolution. I do not think that it would be right for me to anticipate any action which may be taken on that.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that British National Service men will not be sent to Burma to chuck some Chinese out of Burma, as that is the responsibility of the Burmese Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not think that that consequence flows from the resolution to which I have referred.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, despite the statement of Sir Gladwyn Jebb only this week-end, about 350 miles south of the Mawchi mines in Burma another contingent of the Chinese Nationalist troops has opened up an action with rebel Karens some 75 miles from the sea, which seems to indicate that, far from the position being settled, they are apparently trying a drive to the sea to get supplies from Formosa via the sea? Will he be able at some time to investigate this situation to see whether it is as reported?

Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government always take up the attitude that this is not a desirable situation. We want to have it cleared up, and we think that the United Nations' resolution, passed by 59 countries, provides a basis upon which it may be settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Reconstruction and Rehabilitation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action has been taken directly and through the United Nations to ensure


economic reconstruction and social rehabilitation in Korea, particularly in the event of an armistice.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Relief continues to be chiefly the concern of the United Nations Civil Affairs Command in Korea. Reconstruction is going ahead under the 1952–53 United Nations Reconstruction Agency's 70 million dollar programme, to which Her Majesty's Government are contributing £2.8 million. Vehicles, machinery, equipment, fertilisers and grain are being procured and shipped to Korea from a number of countries including the United Kingdom. An armistice would permit wider rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, and these are being studied by the Agency and a special group of consultants.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister satisfied that the necessary financial provision can be made, in view of the possibility of an armistice in Korea, the very great damage that has been done and the very great demand which therefore exists?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that very great damage has been done, but I think we shall derive a great deal of information from the development of the 70 million dollar programme. That is being pushed ahead with all vigour, and after we have reached June of this year I think that we shall have a good deal of practical information upon which we can base our future attitude.

Mr. Osborne: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say how much money is being put up by Russia and China towards the reconstruction of this devastated area?

Mr. Lloyd: As far as my information goes, none.

Mr. A. Henderson: In the event of an armistice, will this reconstruction and rehabilitation programme be extended to North Korea?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter about which I should require an opportunity for consideration. My impression is that no territorial limitation has been imposed upon this reconstruction programme.

British Prisoners of War (Release)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the numbers of

British sick and wounded prisoners in North Korea who have not been freed in the recent release of sick and wounded prisoners.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement regarding the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners of war in Korea.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: So far the exchange of sick and wounded has proceeded smoothly. Thirty-two British prisoners of war have been returned. We do not know whether there are other British sick and wounded still held prisoner, and, if so, how many. I shall not be able to give the House further information until we have completed our inquiries.

Mr. Irvine: As the prisoners already released are, presumably, the best available source of information as to any wounded prisoners that may have been left behind, can we have an assurance that every step is being taken to collect and study the information they can give?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree, and that is the reason for the last sentence of my reply. I can certainly assure the House that we shall prosecute those inquiries as diligently as possible.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of the atrocity stories which are being circulated on both sides, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that it is very important at this moment for as little as possible to be said, and for nothing to be said which will exacerbate the situation in the general sense when truce talks are taking place?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree that our purpose at the present time is to get as many of our sick and wounded prisoners back as we can. In the circumstances, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's contention, that the least said the better.

Captain Duncan: Would we be wrong to assume that because no officers have been repatriated so far there are no officers who are either sick or wounded?

Mr. Lloyd: That, again, is a matter about which I should like to have inquiries made of those who have come back before I can give an answer.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) that he would, therefore, deprecate the continuance of the articles in the "Sunday Observer" by Mr. Deane, their correspondent, whose articles, to say the least, are very revealing?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that that would draw me into an area of controversy from which I had much better stay away.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Chocolate Supplies

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what assurances he obtained from chocolate manufacturers before derationing that adequate supplies would be available to the public after derationing.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): None, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister make it clear that in view of the widespread shortage of chocolate he is prepared to consider any evidence that may be supplied to him by members of the public and small shopkeepers, and will he invite them to submit such evidence to him?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that my offices are open to all members of the public at any time. So far, no one has taken advantage of this to make any complaint in this case.

Farm Workers (Extra Allowances)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food why the extra food allowances issued to farm workers during periods when they are working overtime in the evenings have been limited to 24 days' allowances in the four-months period from 1st August to 30th November when many farm workers will be engaged continuously for eight weeks or longer on corn harvest and potato lifting; and whether the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers were consulted.

Major Lloyd George: The arrangements for individual in place of collective allowances were framed in consultation and agreement with the organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend. The new scheme will on the average give farm workers as much extra food as before.

Mr. Hard: While we welcome the arrangements which my right hon. and gallant Friend has made for the farm workers to draw their allowances direct, may I ask him if he will make sure that he has the division of the year correctly, and when the amounts will really be needed, and whether he will have further consultations with representatives of the industry?

Major Lloyd George: I am prepared to look into the matter, but I would point out that these periods were arranged at the suggestion of the National Farmers' Union and of the workers union.

Mr. Godber: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is very widespread concern about this matter, and that many, particularly those in the arable areas, will actually have their rations cut down? I am sure that that was not intended. Will my right hon. and gallant Friend look at it again?

Major Lloyd George: I am willing to look into it at any time, but I must repeat that the particular periods mentioned were arranged at the suggestion of the organisations concerned.

Fresh Milk (Consumption)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food why the consumption of full price fresh milk for the last three months of this year was 10 million gallons fewer than the corresponding period last year.

Major Lloyd George: Allowing for the fact that there was one day more in the first quarter of 1952 the decline in consumption was fewer that seven million gallons, or 1.9 per cent. It is too small to be attributed to any particular cause.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it was his Department who refused to make an allowance for Leap Year last year? Is he further aware that this latest drop is over 3 per cent compared with the 1951 figures, and that most of us in the country,


and the Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, regard this as a serious decline in the consumption of milk?

Major Lloyd George: There has also been a decline in the quantity of the welfare milk taken up. It cannot be a question of the price of milk, because there has been no increase of price since last July. It may well be—I am fairly sure it is—that it is due to the greater availability of other foods.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary said, in December, that there was a decline in milk for schools, but when we got the figures for the year they showed an increase in milk for schools?

Mr. Beswick: To encourage the consumption of milk would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider a welfare scheme for the old people, who are finding it increasingly difficult to afford it?

Major Lloyd George: It is just as well to realise that the subsidy on milk is costing the country £90 million at present.

Oils and Fats (Prices)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure that his reductions in the prices of oils and fats will reflect themselves in reductions in prices to the domestic consumer.

Major Lloyd George: None. Sir. The reductions are in the prices of inedible oils and fats used for soap making and other industrial purposes for which the market is highly competitive.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that what I had in mind was that the Ministry used to control soap, and that the Ministry have all the particulars? Will the Minister make sure that these price decreases are passed on to the consumer?

Major Lloyd George: The operative part of the supplementary question was "used to control." I do not do so any longer. The hon. Gentleman may recollect what appeared in the newspapers within the last week or so, that it is expected that there will be a price reduction very shortly.

Butter (Consumption)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the percentage reduction in the consumption of butter in 1952 compared with 1951; and whether he anticipates that consumption this year will correspond to that in 1951.

Major Lloyd George: Twenty-five per cent. I hope for some improvement this year over 1952, but it is too early for a precise forecast. In 1951, consumption was maintained at the expense of running down stocks, which I had to restore to a working level.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the less he says about stocks the better? In view of this melancholy record will he make a bid for the enormous butter surpluses in the United States which are still accumulating?

Major Lloyd George: We are, of course, prepared to get as much butter as we possibly can, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his right hon. Friend and he who did with butter, when they were in the late Government, what they did with meat—distribute several thousand tons more than they received.

Protein Feedingstuffs (Importation)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken to import protein feedingstuffs to balance the expected increase in cereal feedingstuffs.

Major Lloyd George: The importation of all animal feedingstuffs is reverting to the trade. I have no reason to expect that protein feedingstuffs will be out of balance with supplies of cereals.

London Meat Traders' Association (Pork Rationing)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what reply he has given to the request of the London Meat Traders' Association to sell pork off the ration; and, in view of the fact that restriction of consumption restricts production, if he will deration food as soon as possible.

Major Lloyd George: The Association has been told that this suggestion is not practicable, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall get rid of all food rationing as soon as circumstances allow.

Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that controls are the cause of shortages and that we shall not have a substantial increase of food supplies until rationing is removed? Will he stop this foolish policy as soon as possible?

Meat Importers' Services (Payment)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food the annual rate of payment now being made to the Meat Importers' National (Defence) Association; and what services are rendered to his Department by this Association in return for these payments.

Major Lloyd George: The amount paid depends on the tonnage handled in any year and on the approved expenses. For the year 1951 to 1952 it was £465,987. The services performed by the Association include all those appropriate to the landing, storage, and first hand distribution of imported meat.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister satisfied with the return for this payment, which has been going on for many years now, and that the Ministry and the country are getting value for money? Why pay these importers for not importing?

Major Lloyd George: Importing is not the only job. After the meat has arrived here it has to be distributed. I am satisfied that this Association, which has been in operation for many years, and supported by every Government since it was formed, is rendering a service cheaper probably than we could do it ourselves.

Mr. Royle: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman divide the figure he has given between the amount absorbed for services and the amount disbursed to members as compensation?

Major Lloyd George: The system of computing this sum has been in operation for many years, and the previous Administration dealt with it in exactly the same way as we do. The figures have been gone into very carefully. The Administration decide what the amount should be. The distribution of the amount is in the hands of the Association.

Mr. Royle: That is not an answer to my question. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman please tell the House how that £470,000 was divided between services and compensation?

Major Lloyd George: So far as the Ministry is concerned, there is no question of compensation. These are purely services and the global sum is distributed by the Association, as it always has been distributed before.

Mr. Keenan: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us exactly what distribution it is for which this body is responsible? Is it not a fact that the Association distribute supplies them selves?

Major Lloyd George: No. The amount of meat varies from year to year. The latest figure is about 460,000 tons.

Mr. Burden: Is not the best method of dealing with this to remove meat from control as soon as possible and allow this organisation to carry out its proper function of buying and selling meat in this country?

Major Lloyd George: I agree, but the question of supply has to be considered beforehand.

Home-Produced Eggs

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what amount was paid for the 81,000,000 home-produced eggs purchased by his Department since eggs were decontrolled; how many of these eggs have been sold; how much was received for them; and what was the profit or loss to his Department.

Major Lloyd George: The information will take a little time to get together. I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us the date on which he hopes to dispose of these eggs, because it is important that the consumer should know that the eggs, by the time they reach him, will not be newly laid?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not worry about that. The storage of eggs has been a practice for many years now. There is no difference in this case. It will probably


be reassuring to the consumer to know that the eggs are available for distribution.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the question of the disposal of eggs putting ideas into the minds of the politically minded public?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Car Parking, Jermyn Street

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the congestion of traffic in Jermyn Street, W.1, frequently caused by vehicles parked on both sides of the street, both before and after the no waiting regulations came into force, and by traffic travelling in both directions along this narrow street; and what steps he proposes to improve the flow of traffic.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the obstruction and delay to traffic which is caused by the parking of cars in Jermyn Street, London; and if he will now take steps to limit all waiting and parking in this street.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): The police, in the ordinary course of their duty, enforce the no waiting regulations now in operation in Jermyn Street. We will, however, consider, in consultation with the other authorities concerned, whether any further measures can be taken to improve traffic conditions in this street.

Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this congestion could be removed immediately either by having unilateral waiting or by having one-way traffic, or both? Would he examine that suggestion carefully?

Mr. Braithwaite: My hon. Friend may recall that in 1934 unilateral waiting was introduced as an experiment and proved unsatisfactory.

Improvements, L.C.C. Area

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport the amount of capital expenditure sanctioned by him for road improvements in the London County Council area for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, giving the figures for each year.

Mr. Braithwaite: The figures are £840,000 in 1951, £1,630,000 in 1952 and £850,000 in the first quarter of 1953.

Improvements, Ross-shire

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the letter which was sent by the Ross-shire County Council to the Divisional Road Engineer, Ministry of Transport, 21, Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, relating to road grants; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Braithwaite: We have considered this letter with sympathy. I much regret that the urgent need for economy in Government expenditure has meant a reduction in the total amount available in 1953–54 for assisting the maintenance and minor improvement of classified roads. My right hon. Friend has no power to make grants for the maintenance of unclassified roads. We have done our best to give Ross-shire its fair share of the money available.

Mr. MacLeod: May I make an appeal to the Minister to have more than a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over this, because it will be many more years before the leeway is made up if this disastrous policy of cutting road grants is continued? Is he aware that there is increasing wastage of labour and materials, particularly in the Highlands, and that local authorities are becoming very perturbed about it?

Mr. Braithwaite: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety and, indeed, disappointment in this matter, but he will appreciate, I know, that the county council's own expenditure on road maintenance receives considerable assistance from central funds by virtue of the Exchequer equalisation grants under the Local Government Act.

Traffic Acts (Prosecutions)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport how many prosecutions took place during the last period of 12 months for which figures are available in respect of offences against Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section 16 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

Mr. Braithwaite: During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1952, the licensing authorities for goods vehicles, or the


police, in co-operation with them, under took 2,600 prosecutions under Section 19 of the Road Traffi;c Act, 1930, and 4,530 under Section 16 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. During the 12 months ended 31st March, 1952, the licensing authorities for public service vehicles or the police, in co-operation with them, undertook 110 prosecutions under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Mr. Renton: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to see that these important provisions of the law are obeyed?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Popplewell: What is the number of prosecutions in respect of Road Haulage Executive vehicles and the number for private enterprise vehicles?

Mr. Braithwaite: If the figures are available, I shall be pleased to obtain them for the hon. Member, if he will put down a Question.

SHIPS (FIRE PROTECTION)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of fire disasters to modern ships, he will consider the appointment of a committee to study methods of ship design which will reduce the risk of such disasters in future.

Mr. Braithwaite: This matter was exhaustively considered at the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1948, when much higher international standards were agreed upon. These were embodied in the Safety Convention, which came into operation on 19th November last.
These higher standards apply to new ships, but British ships have, for some years, come up to them and have a very high degree of protection against fire.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that there have been two recent major disasters through fires on ships? Is it not time that further action was taken?

Mr. Braithwaite: I imagine that my hon. Friend has in mind the "Empress of Canada" and the "Queen Elizabeth" fires. In the case of the first, this was a very old ship, not fitted with sprinklers, but in the case of the "Queen Elizabeth,"

the fact that the fire was dealt with immediately and effectively and did not become serious was emphatic evidence of the improvements which have now been introduced.

Sir H. Williams: What about the Danish ship?

Mr. Braithwaite: The Danes are in vestigating that.

Mr. Hobson: Is it not a fact that these standards are not obligatory?

Mr. Braithwaite: Under the Convention, yes.

UNDER-DEVELOPED AREAS (ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Lee: asked the Prime Minister whether he will outline the type of contribution which the Government is prepared to make to the campaign against poverty suggested by the President of the United States of America and welcomed by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister(Sir Winston Churchill): Sir, Her Majesty's Govern ment view with keen sympathy President Eisenhower's objective. Great Britain is already making considerable contributions to the campaign against poverty, for example, under the Colombo Plan and by way of grants for colonial development. If a substantial measure of disarmament can be achieved, Her Majesty's Government will, of course, review the measure of overseas assistance which can be given by this country. But I cannot be more precise at the moment about action to be taken in political and economic circumstances which are still, unfortunately, hypothetical.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question and also take this opportunity of congratulating him on the honour which has been bestowed upon him? The supplementary question I should like to ask is whether, as I understand that there is to be a debate on foreign affairs next week, he would take the opportunity of perhaps enlarging on the subject matter of this discussion?

The Prime Minister: Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very kind words he has spoken and let me also


express what is the evident feeling of everyone in the House that he has made such a swift and effective recovery from the severe operation he had to undergo. Taking a general view from here, I must say that he looks very much the better for it.
We have agreed that there should be a debate on foreign affairs on Monday and Tuesday of next week. I had wondered whether it might perhaps not be better to put it off for another week, but I should like to discuss that through the usual channels. Things are so very indeterminate at the present moment that it might be difficult. I am entirely in the hands of the House and, in this matter, of the Opposition, to whom we have given promises, but may I say that, naturally, I shall bring this matter into account, but it must be remembered that we are 50 million in this island and we have to keep alive first.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Prime Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, whether he will give an assurance that he is not on the slippery slope to another place and whether his title is to be Sir Winston I or Sir Winston II?

The Prime Minister: Provided the term "another place" is used in its strictly Parliamentary sense, I will gladly give the assurance required.

Mr. Lee: While apologising for bringing the House back to the Question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree that in the event of the present peace hopes becoming more concrete it would be necessary for the Government to have plans laid on well in advance of the rearmament programme having to be scaled down? Would he not therefore agree that we must go ahead immediately with alternative in dustrial projects rather than await the time when the rearmament programme will be rapidly scaled down?

The Prime Minister: I think one should always look ahead, but things are so very obscure at the present time that I think it would be unnecessary to begin specific studies of the kind suggested.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Arising out of the last words used by the Prime Minister in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, will he always bear in mind that

it is a major interest of this country that supplies of raw materials and food grown in the under-developed parts of the world should be rapidly increased?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly.

JET AIRCRAFT IMPROVEMENTS (RUSSIAN USE)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that improvements in jet aircraft carried out in British factories are known and applied in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with in a month and, in a very little longer time, are also applied on the engines of M.I.G. fighters in Korea; and whether he will institute an inquiry.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): No, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: Is the Minister aware that the statements in this Question were made at a conference of the Conservative Party and, as a result, a resolution was passed unanimously, in the presence of the Prime Minister, severely attacking the liberties of the subject? If so, what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member was good enough to send me a Press cutting of this speech which was made by a borough councillor in the hon. Member's constituency. It referred in particular to the sale of Nene engines to Russia by the late Government. In my opinion, the sale of these engines undoubtedly had the effect of reducing by about two years the technical lead in the development of these engines which we then had over the Russians.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that what he is now endeavouring to do is to avoid the substance of this Question by making a criticism of the late Government? Is he aware that at the Conservative Association Conference, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, this borough councillor from Dudley, who is a member of the Conservative Party, made the statement referred to in the Question by my hon. Friend? Unless the Minister is prepared to deny that that statement was made and deny the Press report, would he be good enough to repudiate it?

Mr. Sandys: My answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was, "No, Sir." But I would draw attention to the fact that in the Press cutting sent to me by the hon. Member, the borough councillor in question, after making this statement, said, "This is hearsay." It is a custom of this House that hon. Members do not put down Questions based on hearsay, and that they make themselves responsible for the statements contained in their Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in the interests of the Government, in the interests of the Civil Service and in the interests of the military advisers, to repudiate the statement, even the implication in the statement, that the Soviet Union is able, within one month after the production of modern aircraft, some of them on the secret list, to obtain information?

Mr. Sandys: I will gladly repudiate that. The present Administration takes good care to see that our secrets are not passed over to the Soviet Government. The sale of these engines by the late Government resulted in the handing on a plate to the Soviet Government of two years' development work.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the Minister's cowardly reply —[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early opportunity on the Adjournment.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order—

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order. I must take one at a time.

Mr. Shinwell: Some of us are in a position—I admit quite frankly—of some difficulty over this Question, and particularly over the answer, because it seems to imply that during the late Administration those of us who were responsible, as it happened, for preparing the defences of the country were in the habit of permitting secrets to be conveyed to the Soviet Union. That is a very serious charge. I wish to know, Sir, whether there is any redress and whether you can offer any guidance to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to enable them to repudiate

what are undoubtedly serious and, if I may say so, dastardly allegations.

Sir H. Williams: May I now raise my point of order? The right hon. Gentle man sought, Sir, on a point of order, to continue the discussion which had been terminated by the notice given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that he proposed to raise the matter on the Adjournment. In those circumstances, was not the right hon. Gentleman out of order?

Mr. Speaker: The position, as in any matter of this sort, can only be clarified by debate. We have had notice from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that he is to raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I should say that that occasion would permit of the matter being thoroughly sifted.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (MEMBER'S COMPLAINT)

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. I want your guidance and assistance, Mr. Speaker, if I may have it. I want to draw your attention—and I must apologise for not being in London until 2.50 p.m. today in order to give you notice—to an article which appeared yesterday in the "Sunday Express," headed:
What a Baptism
By Patricia Ford, M.P.
In that article there are some statements which are not facts. I do not want to make reference to the whole of the article; I only want to draw your attention to one particular section of it and to ask your advice on what I must do about it.
I do this, Mr. Speaker, because you may remember that some time ago I was involved in a court case arising out of a supposed incident in the House. After the case was over, I was informed that this House had even more powers than the courts to deal with things that happened inside its own area. Because of that, I draw your attention to this position, and I should like to know, not just at the moment but perhaps when you have had an opportunity of fully looking at this article and of making some comments about it, whether it is a breach of Privilege on behalf of the Member


concerned and also on behalf of the paper which published this article not to make certain, in advance, that the facts being published were correct.
The part to which I want to refer particularly, without making comment about the whole of the article on which I have very definite opinions, is this:
There is even a room upstairs with a couple of beds, and the old stagers seem to get there first. One night I found both Mrs. Bessie Braddock and Dr. Edith Summerskill stretched out on them, and both snoring.
First of all, I have never slept alongside or with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West, and, secondly, which is of more importance, I was never in the room and have never been in the room at any time since it has been opened.
I have no objection at all to true statements being made. Arising out of the last incident, I have been subjected—I am not complaining—to many jocular comments on the wireless, the television and in the Press. I am not objecting to that now, but I am objecting on this occasion to a falsehood being printed in a newspaper and to the newspaper's printing it without finding out whether the facts were correct. The statements are untrue, and other hon. Ladies can verify that what I am saying is a fact. When I pass this newspaper to you, Mr. Speaker, apart from other things in the article—I am referring on this occasion particularly to myself—I hope that some steps will be taken, through the House, to right the wrong that has been done to me.

Miss Bacon: Further to that point of order. Apart from the bad taste of the article, in fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), I should like to state that on the occasion mentioned there were four occupants of the room in question. The hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) and I were occupying chairs, and the two couches were occupied, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and the other by the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess David son). I should imagine that it would be a peculiarly unobservant person who would

mistake the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange.

Mrs. Ford: If I have offended the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) in any possible way, I apologise most wholeheartedly. I can only add that it is sometimes difficult to see in the dark.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, when you have considered this matter, to give a ruling on what is really the more serious aspect of it, which has not been mentioned and has not been apologised for? There is a universal tradition and etiquette, to put it no stronger, observed by all hon. Members and all newspaper men, so far as I know, that no reference should be made at all in public to what may happen in those rooms and parts of the House which are private, such as the Members' Smoking Room. On a previous occasion, when reference was made in the "Observer" newspaper to something alleged to have happened in the Members' Smoking Room, that news paper published a very full apology the following Sunday. Would you kindly bear that in mind and include some reference to it in your Ruling?

Mr. Speaker: I was about to do so. I have heard what the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has said and I am obliged to her for the suggestion that I should consider the case which she has put forward, for I had not read the article. I shall do so, and if there is anything that I can do to help clear up this matter I shall do it.
But I should say—I was about to say it in any case—that as long as I have been an hon. Member it has been understood by hon. Members who may write for the newspapers or talk outside that they should maintain a certain reticence about what happens in the private apartments of the House. The House will also bear in mind that the hon. Lady who wrote the article is a new Member. It is our custom to extend a good deal of indulgence to new hon. Members. I shall consider the matter further, but I say now that it has never been considered proper Parliamentary comment to disclose what happens in our own private apartments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 [Sittings of the House].—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 244.

Division No 158.]
AYES
[3.45 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
 Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddingten, S.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Leather, E. H. C


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Erroll, F. J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Fell, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, H. N.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Llewellyn, D. T


Baker, P. A. D.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Fort, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Banks, Col. C.
Foster, John
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Barber, Anthony
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Longden, Gilbert


Barlow, Sir John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Low, A. R. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollak)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Garner-Evans E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McAdden, S. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
McCallum, Major D.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Godber J. B.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gomme-Duncan Col. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, A. J.


Birch, Nigel
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bishop. F. P.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Black, C. W.
Grimond, J.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St.Albans)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross And Cromarty)


Bowen, E. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Fredric (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major S. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hay, John
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maude, Angus


Bullard, D. G
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maudling, R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Burden, F. F. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.


Campbell Sir David
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller


Carr, Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Cary Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Channon, H.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Churchill Rt Hon Sir Winston
Hollis, M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Clarke Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholls, Harmar


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Clyde, Rt. Hon, J. L.
Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Cole Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Colegate W. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Cooper Son. Ldr. Albert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nutting, Anthony



Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Crooksnank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H.M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Osborne, C.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jennings, R.
Partridge, E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Deedos, W. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kaberry, D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, H. W.
Pitman, I. J.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)




Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Snadden, W. McN.
Tilney, John


Profumo, J. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Rayner, Brig. R
Spearman, A. C. M
Turner, H. F. L


Redmayne, M.
Speir, R. M.
Turton, R. H.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Remnant, Hon. P.
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Renton, D. L. M
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stevens, G. P.
Vosper, D. F.


Robertson, Sir David
Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Robson-Brown, W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Storey, S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Roper, Sir Harold
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Watkinson, H. A.


Russell, R. S.
Studholme, H. G.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. O
Summers, G. S.
Wellwood, W.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Teeling, W.
Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)


Scott, R. Donald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
 Wills, G.


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Shepherd, William
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wood, Hon. R


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
York, C.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)



Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D. L
Janner, B.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edelman, M.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J, (Stepney)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Keenan, W.


Bartley, P.
Fernyhough, E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Fienburgh, W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bence, C. R.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Follick M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, G.
Foot, M M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Beswick, F.
Forman, J. C.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bing, G. H. C.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lewis, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N
Lindgren, G. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson C W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Glanville, James
Logan, D. G.


Boardman, H.
Gooch, E. G.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowden, H. W
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McInnes, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mckay, John (Wallsend)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, F.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
 Manuel, A. C.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy


Butler, Hebert (Hackney, S.)
Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Mellish, R. J.


Carmicheal, J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Messer, F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Champion, A. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.




Monslow, W.


Chapman W. D.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, SE.)
Moody, A. S.


Chetwynd, G. R
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley, Regis)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Clunie, J.
Herbison, Miss, M.
Morley, R.


Coldrick, W.
Hobson, C. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Collick, P. H.
Holman, P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Moyle, A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, F. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, J. H.
Murray, J. D


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.


Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.


Delargy, H. J.
Irving, W J. (Wood Green)
Paget, R. T







Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Skeffington, A. M.
Usborne, H. C.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Viant, S. P.


Pannell, Charles
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wallace, H. W.


Parker, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Paton, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Peart, T. F.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sorensen, R. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Poole, C. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wheeldon, W. E.


Porter, G.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Proctor, W. T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wigg, George


Pryde, D. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wilkins, W. A.


Rankin, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Willey, F. T.


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Ross, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Royle, C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wyatt, W. L.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Short, E. W.
Thornton, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thurtle, Ernest



Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tomney, F.
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

TRANSPORT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CROOKSHANK:

1. The proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

2. If, on the expiration of four hours from the time when the Order of the day for the consideration of those amendments is read, those proceedings have not been completed, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put, as a single question, the question that the Lords amendments, so far as not already agreed to or disagreed to, and (if it has not been already disposed of) the amendment to the Bill (Schedule 4, page 50, leave out lines 22 and 23) standing on the notice paper in the name of Mr. Lennox-Boyd, be agreed to:

Provided that if at this day's sitting the said proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) the time at which Mr. Speaker is to put that question shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon the Motion for the Adjournment.

3.57 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move the notice—

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On a point of order. I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the question whether points of order can be raised on the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman is about to move and before it is moved with a view to ascertaining your judgment on whether it is com petent for him to move it, particularly in relation to the fact that in our opinion certain of the Lords Amendments involve questions of Privilege. We are of opinion that, before the right hon. Gentleman moves it, it ought to be competent to argue these points of order. I should like you to direct your mind to the point whether the right hon. Gentleman should be permitted to move the Motion at all, particularly in relation to Privilege.
There is, of course, the further consideration that there are some points of order that must be seriously advanced and must take a little time Which other wise would take up a part of the two hours of the allocation of time in the proposed Order, which would be an

additional grievance. I should like to know whether we shall be permitted to raise points of order generally at this stage, and certainly the point about Privilege which may or may not be involved in their Lordships Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: One cannot have a point of order in vacuo without some business before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has moved it, before proposing it to the House I shall try to satisfy hon. Members that the Motion is in order. As I promised, I have given this matter a considerable amount of study over the weekend and perhaps it might assist our proceedings if, for the sake of brevity, I read out what I have put together. I have only written it because it will be shorter that way than it would be if I tried to find words as I go along. This is what I have written: "The Motion proposed"—

Mr. Morrison: If we can argue—that is hardly the right word—the matter after you have made the statement, that is all right. The only thing I put to you with great respect is this: is it right for you to give a Ruling before you have heard the arguments on the question whether the Motion is in order? I think it might place us in a difficulty if sub sequently considerations were put to you which, on second thoughts, you regarded as points of substance. It seems to me that it is perhaps a little unusual—I am saying this with the deepest respect to you personally and as Mr. Speaker—if Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling before the submissions were made to him in the House.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I was going on the sub mission made to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on the last occasion, so I knew there was some doubt about this matter and I shall endeavour to satisfy it. For my own part, if the right hon. Gentleman cares now to put the point of order he has in mind. I will listen to him.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to you, Sir. In the first place, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are certain provisions in their Lordships' Amendments which, in our judgment, prima facie involve questions of Privilege. You will recall. Sir.


that when questions of Privilege are involved on Lords Amendments it is customary for the Chair to draw attention to them. Often the House raises no issue about them and they are entered upon the Journals of the House. For example, there is a point on page 7 of the Lords Amendments, namely, the Amendment in page 15, line 34, which deals with the Transport Fund and which not only involves a compulsory levy to be imposed by the State, and therefore is in the nature of taxation, but presumably, if the levy is inadequate, the Treasury will have to do something about it. On page 7 of the Lords Amendments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with those points now. I am quite satisfied that there are seven of the Lords Amendments which involve questions of Privilege and as to which, in the ordinary course, if the House agrees to them, I shall direct a special entry to be made in the Journals. That is the usual practice. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to state now for the sake of the record what the Amendments are, I will do so. There are seven, including the one he was talking about. I can accept that straight away and I do not need to be convinced of it.

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that we are thinking about the same Amendments, Sir, and it would save time if we did not now particularise about them. My point is that when the Chair mentions that a point of Privilege is involved, it is for the purpose of enabling the House, if it so desires, to object in the interests of the Privilege of the House. My point about that is that if the Allocation of Time Order provides, as I understand it does, that the outstanding Amendments are to be put as a whole and so we are forbidden to particularise as between one Amendment and another, we cannot vote for or against particular Amendments on their merits and therefore we cannot pursue the point of Privilege. Surely the Motion is out of order, in so far as it prevents this House from even considering persisting in its rights of Privilege? May I take that point first?

Mr. Leslie Hale: Further to that point of order, because none of us wishes to waste time on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is a fundamental matter of principle upon

which this country fought a bloody civil war, in respect of which John Hampden was tried and which is one of the fundamental principles of this House that you, Sir, on our behalf, demand from the Crown at the opening of every Parliament. I should not have thought it possible for anyone to wish to be facetious about an issue like this, or not to wish for a few moments that anyone who raises it should not have a considerate hearing.
I would not have the impertinence, Sir, to refer you to the precedents on this matter, because I know you must be familiar with them, that you must be cognisant of them and must bear them constantly in mind. The original Resolution of the House of 1671 ended the long controversy of the 17th century and was one upon which the Attorney-General was properly congratulated by this House—an almost unprecedented thing—for the representations he made on our behalf to another place.
The second Resolution of 1678, in which the claims were enlarged and have never since been disputed, was that on matters of taxation, on matters of the levying of funds, on matters relating to public finance, this House should have the powers of originating legislation, of passing legislation and of determining legislation. That has never been challenged. And Mr. Speaker, you will also be familiar with the debate of 5th July, 1860, when Viscount Palmerston, in an able and brilliant speech, which most of us have read many times, reasserted in due form and in due detail the privileges of this House which have never been challenged to this day.
On that, therefore, I need only make a brief submission, because the matter has already been opened so ably by my right hon. Friend. I want to put my own single point of view upon this matter. The suggestion is that at 10 o'clock tonight or thereabouts this House shall be confronted with a single decision, a decision which hon. Members can only exercise by one single voice, either to accept in toto the Lords Amendments or to reject them. There may be a mass of which we approve. There are indeed a mass of which, subject to minor Amendments, we would have approved. There are some which we regard, and which I understand the Public Bill Office regard,


and which you have said you would consider as by themselves an infringement of the Privilege of this House which can only be waived by the vote of the House ad hoc on that matter.
For the House to waive its Privilege on a matter of this kind which is fundamental and about which I am sure both sides of the House are deeply concerned, it must be done ad hoc. Today is the first time that the Allocation of Time Order as tabled on the Order Paper can be raised, because it is only today that it is tabled as the first Government Order of the Day, and therefore we have the first formal notice that the Government intend to move it and put it into effect. The effect of that Order is that we shall not have the opportunity of considering the question of individual Privilege or of the Privilege relating to that single Amendment; we shall have to make a single decision that we will accept all the Amendments, and that will be done on a three-line Whip without an individual vote being taken.
It will mean, with great respect, that you, Sir, in a sense are banishing some of your powers by that vote of the House. As I understand it, you may not even have the right to call the attention of the House individually to the seven Amendments. As I understand it, even if you do, the House would have to ignore what you say to them because they would not have the right to exercise a vote. Hon. Members are being deprived of the right of saying, "We waive our Privilege on Clause A but not on Clause B." And much more than that, they are being virtually deprived of the right of raising the matter at all. I submit respectfully to you, Sir, on this issue of great importance, that the Allocation of Time Order as at present drafted, and as now moved as the first Government Order of the Day, is a grave infringement of the Privileges of this House and should be referred to the Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: May I answer this point first since I think it would be convenient to the House? The Lords Amendments which involve questions of Privilege are those in page 15, line 34; page 16, line 45; page 18, line 11; page 27, line 13; page 46, line 45; page 47, line 8; and page 47, line 34. In the usual way I should call the attention of the House to

them as they came along. It would be for the House then to decide whether or not it waived its Privileges. The House cannot do anything against its own Privileges. If the House sanctions it, by passing the Amendments—and I see no difference between passing them seriatim anden bloc—it waives its Privilege on those occasions. It is my duty to draw the attention of the House to that, and that is why I do so now.
Once the House has agreed to the Motion, it has automatically waived its Privilege. All that can be done, all that is done, is for Mr. Speaker to direct that a special entry be made in the Journals, which I shall do in this case, drawing attention to the fact. But I see nothing in that point which makes the Motion out of order.

Mr. H. Morrison: Surely, the whole point of Mr. Speaker's drawing attention in the ordinary way to the fact that an issue of Privilege arises is in order to give the House an opportunity to assert itself on that point if it so desires. You are now, Sir, I gather, putting the point that the House, by passing or accepting their Lordships' Amendments, thereby automatically waives its Privilege. Under the Motion, we shall be denied that opportunity of waiving our Privilege and of questioning it as we go along. Indeed, the Allocation of Time Order would completely wipe away the chance of the House of Commons to raise the question of Privilege at all. Thereafter you would tell the House that a Privilege is raised, and, presumably, you would have to say that it had been specifically set aside by the House, which I submit it would not have been. That an entry must be made in the Journals seems to me irregular, contrary to practice, and as frittering away an undoubted right and Privilege of great importance possessed by the House of Commons as against another place.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot take that view. The House stands guardian of its own Privileges. If the House feels that it should insist on the Privilege point on any of these Amendments, hon. Members can express themselves by voting against the block Motion. There is no other way in which it can be done.—[HON. MEM BERS: "Oh."]—no, not if the House votes for the block Motion. These


matters are for the control of the House. They are not in my control. The Motion is not out of order in that regard.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: This is a new point. I submit that the whole purpose of calling attention to these matters of Privilege is for the House to express an opinion on something on which it either desires to assert or is willing to waive its Privilege. My submission is that if, on the other hand, these matters of Privilege are bound up with a whole lot of other matters entirely extraneous to them, there is no real decision by the House because that decision is one that has to be taken on the whole thing, in which the essence is that no one can take a view; it is reduced to the two sides of the House. The Government say that the Lords Amendments must all be accepted, and the Opposition may either accept or oppose.
Therefore, the House is in effect denied the right of coming to a decision on the specific points. I suggest that that has never before been done. The case in which the Lords Amendments were rejected en bloc was on the Education Bill in the 1906 Parliament, but ipso facto if the whole lot were rejected the question of Privilege could not arise. The acceptance en bloc of Lords Amendments involving questions of Privilege is an entirely new matter.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I wish to raise a point on the terms of the Motion. It is true that you, Mr. Speaker, have drawn our attention to various of these Amendments which conflict with our Privileges. The Question on a particular Lords Amendment will not be before the House. In my submission, the question as to their conflicting with our Privileges must arise when the Question is put to us that we agree with the Lords in the particular Amendment. It is then, when the Question is put, that it becomes your duty to point out to the House that there is a conflict of Privilege and it is then for us to consider whether we shall waive our Privilege and that an entry shall be put in the Journals.
4.15 p.m.
Let us assume—I think one must make an assumption for this argument—that the four hours offered in the Motion expire before at least some of

the Lords Amendments are reached. Therefore, we arrive at the hour when the Guillotine falls without the Question having been put. When that arises, you will be ordered and compelled by the terms of the Motion, if it is passed, in that
Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put, as a single question, the question that the Lords amendments, so far as not already agreed to or disagreed to … be agreed to.
That provides you no opportunity, unless you contravene the Order, to draw our attention to the question of Privilege with regard to a Question which has been put. In my submission, the Motion is a breach of Privilege in itself, because it forbids you taking the action which you are required to take in order to protect our Privilege.
Erskine May refers at page 782 to what happens when the Question is put:
It is the function of the Speaker to direct the attention of the House, when occasion arises"—
that is, when the Question is put—
to a breach of its privileges in bills or amendments brought from the Lords, and to direct the special entries to be made in the Journals by which the House, in respect of particular amendments, signifies its willingness to waive its privilege without thereby establishing a general precedent.
You having drawn our attention to the matter, it is for the House to consider what reason shall be put in the Journals and at page 788 Erskine May states:
The Commons, when they so wish, 'waive privilege' in individual cases, and accept amendments by the Lords, so long as they do not materially infringe the privileges of the Commons. In such cases they justify their action by an entry inserted in the Journal, under direction from the Speaker, which, while implicitly asserting their general rights, explains their motives for not asserting them in the particular instance.
Then follow a series of reasons which the House may decide to give to the Lords for disagreement. That is a whole series of steps which the protection of our Privileges requires and which have to take place after the Question is put. There is nothing before the House until the Question is put. It is precisely those steps of which we are deprived by the Motion. I submit that the Motion is contrary to our Privileges and, therefore, out of order.
You have said, Mr. Speaker, that this House cannot destroy its own Privileges.


It can decide whether or not to assert them, but it cannot destroy them. The Motion would destroy our Privileges because it would compel us to accept an infringement of those Privileges without considering the matter, without having our attention drawn to it by you, which is your duty when the Question is put, and without considering the reasons for waiving it, if at all.

The Prime Minister(Sir Winston Churchill): On a point of order. May I ask whether it would not be for the general convenience of the House to hear your Ruling which you had proposed to give, dealing with the question of how much these various points of order can be brought within the scope of the arrangements for the conduct of business? I am sure we shall address ourselves to the problems raised much easier when we have heard your considered view of this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: Further to that point of order. I really thought the Prime Minister had done enough damage to the rights of this House by putting down the Motion at all. I do beg of you, Mr. Speaker, not to accelerate the giving of a Ruling until you are satisfied about all substantial points that have been raised. I have raised this by way of a preliminary, but I have a number of points which I may make in a collective statement, a single statement, afterwards. I beg of you not to respond to the totalitarian appeal of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: So far the point of order raised is concerned with the Privilege attaching to certain Lords Amendments. I have drawn the attention of the House to those Amendments and, if necessary, I can do so again. But having considered the matter with the best care I can, I am forced to the conclusion that if the House agrees to the Amendments, either seriatim or, as here proposed, en bloc, it does, by agreeing to the Lords Amendments, waive its Privileges. Then all that can be done to protect the future is to see that a special entry is made in the Journals. The House may take it as an additional reason for voting against Amendments en bloc that they do raise questions of Privilege which it may not be prepared to waive, but, on the other hand, I am quite sure that if this procedure is followed and the House votes en bloc for the Amendments and carries

them by a majority, that is a decision of the House and Privilege, as far as it is applicable, is waived.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. When you proposed earlier to make your statement, Mr. Speaker, I was favourable to that being done, but in my view something very serious has arisen as a result of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr.H. Morrison) brought for ward. I think that in order to facilitate business, it would be better to confine our selves to this very narrow issue of the Lords Amendments in order to obtain your Ruling on that before we begin to deal with the Motion. If you agree with that reasoning, I want to ask you this: I understand you have ruled that there are seven Lords Amendments subject to Privilege. If so, will they be so subject if the Motion is carried for the limitation of time, and, if so, will you be good enough to quote precedents to the House and refer us to Erskine May?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)—and I hope without prejudicing my right to make a submission to you about the other challenge to this Motion which I made the other day—may I submit a point arising out of what you last said about protection in the future? I want to submit that if you rule against my right hon. Friend's sub mission that this Motion is out of order because it is a breach of the Privilege of this House, then of course there can be no protection whatever in the future, because on that assumption any Government at any time can repeat what this Government are doing today and rely on their majority on the back benches in order to force it through by a vote in the Division Lobby, thus depriving the minority of what would be their rights if you were to do other wise.
For the reason that the Ruling you give today on this point is so important, since it means that if you once rule that this kind of Motion is no breach of Privilege by itself it can be put down by any Executive at any time, it would seem to mean that we are going back to the position as it was before the famous Resolution of 1671. It would mean that matters which have been regarded as not debatable be cause there is a breach of the Privileges of


this House have become, for the first time in more than two centuries, a matter to be decided by whichever side of the House happens to have a majority of seats at any particular moment.
In view of that, may I respectfully and humbly submit to you that it may be a point which you would prefer not to decide today on the basis of argument or submissions made in this way? It is a constitutional point of the utmost importance with the greatest significance for constitutional Parliaments of the future. I submit to you that it would be proper that this matter should now be adjourned so that you could consider your Ruling on the point that has been raised. I am amazed to see that the Minister of Transport should see anything amusing in that, because it has to be remembered that we are in this difficulty only because of the refusal of the Government to grant one more day.

The Prime Minister: Might I respectfully ask you whether it would not be a great help to the House to have your considered Ruling on the question?

Mr. Speaker: I would say, in reply, that the considered Ruling deals with the general position and so far we have got to the suggestion raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the matter of the Lords Amendments involving Privilege. I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I have said. The truth is that the House cannot act in breach of its Privilege, and if the Motion proposed by the Allocation of Time Order is carried at the end of the day the House has automatically waived its Privilege in regard to Amendments which are involved in it.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) asked for a precedent. I do not know of any case in which Lords Amendments have been agreed to en bloc —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— although there are two instances of them being disagreed en bloc—in 1906 and 1909. But it is not beyond the power of this House to order that we agree with them en bloc.
Therefore, I must adhere to my Ruling and I would advise the House, as time is getting on, if there is no other point regarding it to proceed, and I must consider the matter of Privilege settled.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you rule whether this Motion is in order in view of the statement you have just made?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know of a precedent for applying a time-table order to Lords Amendments, except the contrary one of disagreeing to them en bloc, and that does not involve a time table. But the fact that there is no precedent for a thing does not mean that it is out of order. If the House agrees to the Order that is proposed by the Government, the House will be creating a precedent, but it is not out of order to start something.

Mr. H. Morrison: In these circumstances, you having kindly considered the argument and given your Ruling, we must of course, for the time being, accept it: but I think, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I must intimate to the House—without the slightest disrespect to you, Sir—that we do regard this of such profound importance that it may be necessary for us to put a Motion down declaratory of the rights of this House—which only shows how foolish it is for Governments to think they are saving time when they are not.
I desire with great respect—and I will do it as briefly as I can—to raise with you a number of points—

The Prime Minister: On the point of order. May I ask that we should have your Ruling which you were about to read when you were interrupted on a point of order by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)? Can we not go forward with this discussion on the basis of knowing what your considered Ruling is?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have so far dealt with one point of order. I have a Ruling on the main issue, but I think I should like to hear what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South says.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I am very grateful that you personally, Mr. Speaker, are willing to listen to representations and, therefore, to pay respect to the rights of the House.
The series of points which I wish to raise on the point that this Motion should


not be proposed are as follows. I understand that you took the view the other day that as the Motion begins by referring to "The proceedings," these are part of the proceedings on the Bill. It is true that the original Order governing the proceedings on the Bill had that opening, but one must take the Order as a whole, and the general context of the Order, and immediately after having declared that the Order covered proceedings of the Bill it then proceeded to specify the maximum time which could be taken on three stages—the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading. At no time was there any declaration as to the maximum time which should be taken on the Lords Amendments; nor indeed were the Lords Amendments mentioned in the Motion at all.
There is the other point that surely we all contemplated that the original Order applied to the proceedings in the House until the Bill was passed; and my understanding was that in response to a point of order raised the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who was arguing, as he had a perfect right to do, in a certain direction, you held that he was out of order on the ground that the Bill had been passed when it received its Third Reading. At that point the Bill passed out of the possession of this House and passed to another place.
As I said, all these stages were specified, but the Lords Amendments were not mentioned. Therefore, it is our submission that the Lords Amendments are separate from the House of Commons consideration of the Bill up to its passing—its consideration at earlier stages, and to which the Allocation of Time Order originally passed properly applied. Moreover, it is the case, to the best of my recollection—I can be corrected if I am wrong—that no Minister of the Crown at the time—[Interruption] It is a little inconvenient for the Prime Minister to have rather noticeable and hearable conversations over there. Further, I really do not want to hear his private tactical conversations with the Leader of the House; I do not think it is decent on my part to know. I wish he would do it more quietly or go to another place to do it.
It is the case that when the Motion was moved no Minister of the Crown mentioned the possibility of the Order applying to Amendments from their Lordships' House. I am perfectly certain that not a single Member of this House contemplated it applying to their Lordships Amendments: and that, therefore, while this proposal is an invention out of certain wording of the Order that may or may not be held to apply to it—I am very doubtful about it—it is something which was not contemplated.
I submit that it is a precedent of grave constitutional importance. The provision for supplementary orders to the original Order dealt with the report of the Business Committee, which is significant. My belief is that the provision—I had something to do with this when I was a Minister of the Crown—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but I have never done this, and I would not have done it. If the Government pass this Motion, I must reserve all rights for a future Labour Government, though I profoundly hope that in the interests of Parliament it will not be necessary or expedient for any Labour Government to use them. But if the Conservative Party takes rights to itself it cannot deny them to its successors if that necessity should arise.
As I was saying, I have had a hand in the drafting of Guillotines, much to my sorrow; I hate the things. My recollection is that this provision about supplementary orders was to cover circumstances in which, in my mind, there might be a change of the House of Commons time-table involved up to the passing of the Bill. Quite frankly, the point I had most in mind was that it might, as progress continued, be desirable to give the Opposition more time for their criticisms of the provisions of the Bill, and, therefore, to vary the original Guillotine.
Never did I dream that this provision, which it was right to include to cover any unanticipated circumstances—neither did anybody on the other side of the House, or any Minister of the Crown dream—would be used by the Government for this unheard-of purpose—a purpose for which it has never been used before. The precedent of the Liberal Government previously in taking all the Amendments as a whole may be relevant


to the single question, but it is not relevant to the question of the Allocation of Time Order; it has nothing whatever to do with it.
The provision for a supplementary order was, in my view, to cover possible technical faults in drafting or any contemplated change in the allocation of time, possibly in favour of the Opposition. This supplementary Order is brought forward without any mention of the Business Committee provided for in Standing Orders; and there is no opportunity for us to discuss how the time shall be allocated, though goodness knows there is not much time to allocate. The Business Committee is completely set aside.
The next point is that it is provided that their Lordships' Amendments are to be put as a whole. I beg you, Sir, to consider the point as to what position we are to be in at 10 o'clock, or 10.30, or whatever the hour may be. There will be left under consideration, so far as I can tell, a substantial number of Amendments from another place. Under the original Guillotine, and under Guillotines within my experience, it is true that there comes a time when the Guillotine falls; at that point all Opposition Amendments are wiped out—that is rough luck on the Opposition—but the Government Amendments are put seriatim one by one, and we can vote on them for or against, according to the merits of the case.
There are some of their Lordships Amendments with which we agree and would acquiesce in, and there are others with which we do not agree and which we would not acquiesce in and would vote against. Can you, Sir, give us any guidance, in responding to the points of order, on what we are to do later? Are we to vote for and against particular proposals or are we to be so totalitarian that we have to vote for or against the whole lot, irrespective of the immediate Issue of the case? If it comes to that point we shall vote against the lot, not on the merits of the case, not on any merits at all, but as a protest against the procedure which the Government are proceeding to take.
I submit that this process of putting the Lords Amendments as a whole is very much like the Hitlerite Reichstag. It is,

so far as I know—perhaps some other hon. Member on this side of the House, or more likely on the other side, will know—very similar to the Cortes of Spain under the present regime; and presumably it is something like the procedure—if this is any comfort to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is a point they have to keep in mind—of the Supreme Soviet. I think it would be in accordance with their procedure.
Finally, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the matter in its broadest constitutional form. I know this is a serious point which you will have to weigh in your consideration. There is always this about the British Constitution, that it is a great Constitution, but it is unwritten. I am a great admirer of it, but nevertheless it is the case that if in this House a majority goes wrong; if a majority takes liberties; if a majority is determined to destroy the British Constitution, it can do so in this House alone. That I admit, and I know to be the case. Therefore, there may be occasions upon which the protection of the House; the protection of our constitutional liberties; the protection of the Constitution, may be the duty of Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons himself.
I wish to submit to you, Sir, as guardian of the rights and privileges of this House, how proud we are at the beginning of Parliament when we claim from the Sovereign that the rights and privileges of this House be upheld, and the Sovereign responds that they shall be upheld. I ask you to protect those rights, as against the rights of the present majority, by preserving the rights of the present Opposition—and, incidentally, those of any Opposition that may follow hereafter—and I ask you on the particular grounds I have submitted and on the broad constitutional ground to which I have referred to rule this Motion out of order and not to permit it to be moved.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient were I to say now what I have to say, because time is running on and there are other matters to be discussed.
I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has said. He directed my attention to the merits of this Motion and whether the


House should pass it or not. With that I have nothing to do. I have only to deal with the procedural issue involved. For me to be asked to protect the Constitution to the extent of ruling out of order something which is not out of order by the rules of the House was not, I think, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. What I have said, or what I propose to say, is this.
The Motion before the House is founded on the Order of the House of 24th November. That Order commences with the words:
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Transport Bill.
The Order then sets out the number of days allotted for the stages of the Bill; Committee, Consideration and Third Reading. The first 14 paragraphs of the Order set out incidental matters governing proceedings on those stages.
Paragraph 15 provides for a Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing that Order, and it is governed, as are the other paragraphs, by the opening words of the Order which I have read. The first question therefore is whether the consideration of the Lords Amendments are remaining proceedings on the Transport Bill? The answer to that must be in the affirmative.
The Order itself makes no allotment of days for consideration of the Lords Amendments, and indeed could not properly do so, because it could not be assumed that in fact the Bill would be amended in the Lords. Nor if it were so assumed could the number and extent of the Amendments be forecast. Paragraph 15 of the Order is therefore drawn in wide terms.
If I may I would step aside and say that I do not know whether the Minister or the House appreciated that when the Bill was going through, but it seems to me that some draftsman had that in mind in this and in previous Orders. Paragraph 15 of the Order is therefore drawn in wide terms and permits a motion supplementing the Order inter alia by making an Allocation of Time Order for the consideration of Lords Amendments if there are remaining proceedings on the Transport Bill.
I say again, it is for the House to decide whether this Motion should be passed, but I must Rule that the Motion is procedurally in order.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you have directed your mind to the question of whether or not Lords Amendments are proceedings on the Bill. Unless they are proceedings on the Bill, obviously this Motion is out of order, because it is really an Amendment to the previous Motion which deals only with the proceedings on the Bill.
Originally Bills in this House were founded on petitions and a Bill is merely the formal form of a petition. In those circumstances a Bill is finished and done with when it has left this House. It was. originally the process of this House to provide for an engrossment of the Bill, a Motion for engrossment, and finally the Motion, "That the Bill be passed."
If one looks at the old authorities one finds they all provide that there may be no further proceedings on a Bill once the Motion of the House, "That the Bill be passed" has been carried. What then happens is that an identical Bill, which for convenience is generally the same Bill, an identical petition, is presented in their Lordships' House. If in fact these Bills are identical then, and only then, will the Royal Assent be given to the matter as an Act.
It is a little difficult, because this has so long been assumed, but the fact is that there is no acual precedent which shows exactly how that arose. I have not been able to find a matter which deals exactly with the point. But there is, in Hatsell's Precedents, a precedent quoted which runs very close to the matter we are here considering. Then the question arose, not as to whether Lords Amendments were proceedings on a Bill, but whether it was necessary for the Lords to communicate to the Commons whether they had agreed to a Bill. If, of course, the proceedings on the one Bill were one and the same thing, it would not be necessary for each House to communicate to the other House whether they had agreed to the Bill before Royal Assent could be given.
In Hatsell's Precedents, in the second Volume at page 339, it states:
On Friday, the 29th of January, 1768, the King came to the House of Lords to pass the Bills ready for the Royal Assent, amongst which were some that came originally from the House of Commons, to which the Lords had agreed; the message, signifying the agreement, could not be received by the House of Commons, as the Speaker could not collect forty Members, to enable him to take the Chair; the Speaker therefore sent to the House of Lords, to desire that those Bills might be stopt, and not offered; notwithstanding which, the Clerk was directed to proceed, and the Bills accordingly received the Royal Assent. The Speaker (Sir John Cust) at his return, was very angry, and said, that on such another occasion, he would, at the Bar, acquaint the King and Lords, that no -message had been brought to the Commons of the Lords having agreed to the Bill: Lord Marchmont and Lord Sandys (both Lords of great experience in Parliament) replied, that when both Houses had passed a Bill, it was not in the power of any person to withhold it from being offered for the Royal Assent, or (as they expressed themselves), to take it off the Table"—
and Hatsell adds,
I believe they were right in this opinion.
That, I say with great respect, is an opinion of a very old authority which the House ought to be very chary of disregarding. Quite clearly the position is that these are two quite different processes. An identical document is passed by either House and if it is discovered by the Crown, as it were, that the documents are identical then in fact the Royal Assent is given, because there has been a petition from each House of Parliament in regard to the matter.
In my submission the position is that each House in fact petitions the Crown in a certain form. Indeed, if we look at the Private Bill procedure one sees that largely carried out to this day, and if those two petitions are in identical form, then, and only then, will the Royal Assent be given.
If there is any difference between the petitions to the Crown of the two Houses, the one House consults the other, and the very fact that all these difficulties have arisen in regard to privilege and everything else is, in my submission, the obvious reason why, when the House is considering Lords Amendments, we are not engaged in proceedings on a Bill. The Bill which they are considering can only be the document which was submitted to the House, and, in that document, no

question of the privileges of the House could arise.
What happens now is that, somewhere else, another document, resembling this but not entirely resembling it, is originated, and that document contains various matters which have been properly originated in the House of Commons. If the House agrees to that, it does so by making a special entry in the Journal, and that, surely is an indication that what we are considering are two different forms of petitions to the Crown, and it is an attempt by the two Houses to get an agreement on them that results in our deciding to take into consideration the petition to the Crown.
In these circumstances, it is my submission that these are not proceedings on the Bill, because the only Bill which was before the House when the Motion was moved—and this Motion was moved relative to the actual Bill before the House—could have been the Bill which was before the House of Commons. It cannot refer to a Bill which subsequently comes here after consideration in another place. In these circumstances, I submit that you were wrong in the decision you made, and that, in fact, these proceedings on these Lords Amendments are not proceedings on a Bill as originally moved in this House.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order.

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister rose—

Mr. Speaker: I should like to point out to the House that I have considered the matter very carefully, and I have given a Ruling, but it is for the House to decide how to use the limited time. The Motion has been moved—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes; I called on the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and he moved his Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. He did, and paragraph 15 of the original Order refers to the commencement of the proceedings, and that is when the Motion is moved. I do wish to ask the House, in their own interests and in the interests of the Opposition, to pass on to the consideration of their Amendments.
May I say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), that I am very interested in what he said and in his old precedent. I think


it is relevant to the procedure that must be followed before the Royal Assent. One part of that procedure is that the two Houses should agree as to the form of the Bill, and that is why the Lords Amendments on the Bill come down to us for us to consider them. I am perfectly certain in my own mind that consideration of Lords Amendments, though not a stage of a Bill, is nevertheless part of the proceedings on a Bill within the meaning of this Order, and that is the foundation of the Ruling which I have given.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think you did call me a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister would not give way. I submit that the Ruling you are now giving—that these are proceedings on the Transport Bill, and that, therefore, the Order of 24th November can be supplemented in order to apply to them—is inconsistent with your own Ruling on the same point only last week. I should like to draw your attention to what you said then, and to make the point clear.
On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) sought to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned," in order to call attention to a certain new fact. Had these, in fact, been proceedings upon the Transport Bill, there is no doubt that the kind of matter that he wished to raise was such as would have persuaded the Chair to allow him to move that Motion. You intervened to stop him, and your words in doing so will be found in column 1185, of HANSARD for 22nd April. You said:
The business before the House is the consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill which has, apart from these Amendments, already passed both Houses of Parliament. This is not a stage in the Bill. This is the consideration of Amendments to a Bill which has already passed.
I ventured to ask a question with regard to that. That question, which was based upon the assumption that your present Ruling was the correct one, will be found in column 1186. I said:
With respect, in the course of the Ruling which you gave to my right hon. Friend a few moments ago, you stated that we are dealing with a Bill that has already passed. I want to submit that, no doubt inadvertently, you gave an incorrect statement of the position. The Bill has not passed. It has been given a Second Reading in this House. It has passed

through certain proceedings in another place, and certain Amendments have been proposed, and the House is now being asked to consider whether discussion of the Bill shall proceed.
You did not accept that, and, in column 1187, you said:
In reply to the first point of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); if he consults the Journals of the House for the day on which this Bill was read the Third time here, he will see it entered there as 'Read the Third time, and passed.' So the Bill has passed this House.
Later, you said:
This is a serious point. The Bill has also gone to another place and has been amended there, and we are now considering Amendments, but what I am anxious to point out to the House is that we are dealing with Lords Amendments, and this is a different position from an ordinary stage in the procedure of a Bill through this House. We are dealing with a Bill to which, in the main, the House has given its assent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1953; Vol. 514. cc. 1185–87.]
The House accepted that Ruling, and my hon. Friend, therefore, did not proceed with a Motion which, but for that Ruling, he would obviously have been entitled to move. I submit, with great respect, that if what we are doing today and what we were then doing were proceedings upon the Bill, my hon. Friend should not have been stopped from moving his Motion. If, on the other hand, they are not proceedings upon the Bill, the Order of 24th November exhausted itself on the day on which this House gave a Third Reading to the Bill, and that it is very difficult to say that what we are doing is proceedings on a Bill for one purpose and not proceedings on a Bill for another purpose.

Mr. Speaker: I must answer that point, and say that there is no inconsistency whatever in the two statements. I was pointing out to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that we were dealing with Lords Amendments, and that the Adjournment Motion that he wanted to propose must be relevant to one of the Lords Amendments. I said we were not dealing with a stage in a Bill, and I repeat that, but have said that the consideration of Lords Amendments is a proceeding on the Transport Bill.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I am not rising in order further to contest your Ruling, but merely to ask for further clarification for our guidance, arising out of what happened last Friday morning.


Are we now to understand that, because it appears that the constitutional relationship between this House and another place has been gravely affected by this Measure, if any Guillotine Motion is moved in this knowledge under the original Order—I am not speaking about this Motion—it must be implied that there is a power on the part of the Government, under a subsequent order made under the original Order, to prevent any consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill? If that be the Ruling which arises naturally out of what you have been good enough to say today, then it is a grave constitutional position, as I tried to say on Friday morning, which will have repercussions outside the House.
5.0 p.m.
Secondly, in view of the fact that under the original Order there was set up a Business Committee—which at least is a partial protection for the Opposition in deciding on what parts of the Bill it would like to spend the most time, and which Committee met on the previous day—and as there is now no Business Committee and, therefore, there has been no opportunity even to allocate the small amount of time at our disposal, does not that mean that the Government themselves are by a further provision in this Order subsequent upon the provisional Order, not only denying to the Opposition the opportunity of discussing Lords Amendments, but also any means of indicating which one of the Lords Amendments it would like to discuss even in the small amount of time put at its disposal?
If I am right in what I have said, Mr. Speaker—and all I am asking is whether you agree with me or not—is it not a matter which we must always take into account when any Order on a Bill is to be considered by the House?

Mr. Speaker: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government can prevent the consideration of Lords Amendments. In the technical sense, no, because unless the Lords Amendments are considered and dealt with in some way or other the Bill cannot travel between the two Houses. It is quite true that timetable Motions passed by the House are binding on the House, and the only guarantee against a harsh operation of such Motions is the good sense of the House and what the House will agree to.

I have never seen a time-table Motion which was not objected to, and I think hon. Members will agree that this should be avoided if possible, because it is the usual custom of the House to try and agree.
The right hon. Gentleman also drew my attention to the Business Committee. The Standing Order providing for the Business Committee refers to the stages of the Bill in this House, namely, to Committee and consideration. This is another proceeding on the Bill, and therefore the Business Committee Standing Order does not apply to these proceedings. I do not know how, unless by agreement, we can decide what Amendments to take.

Mr. Bevan: Is not that, Mr. Speaker, a Ruling of the utmost significance, because, first of all, we are told that the Business Committee Standing Order can apply to the stages of the Bill, but does not apply to the proceedings. A distinction is now being made between stages in procedure. By saying that the original Order applies to the procedure of the Bill and the Business Committee Order only to the stages of the Bill, it means—there being no Business Committee on the proceedings of the Bill—that, therefore, there is no opportunity whatever for the Opposition to indicate on which of the Lords Amendments it wants to spend the most time. Therefore, we have not only a quantitative curtailment, indeed, quantative abolition, it may be, of the right of the House of Commons to discuss the Lords Amendments, but a qualitative limitation on them concerning which of the Lords Amendments it considers ought to be discussed.
As it is the first time that any timetable Order has been given this interpretation, all we want to find out is if the same language is used in another Guillotine Motion at another time we shall have to interpret that Motion in the light of the significance of the Ruling you have given today. It seems to us from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, and the interpretation you have given that a profound constitutional change has taken place in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.

Mr. Crookshank: Mr. Crookshank rose—

Mr. Richard Adams: The first point of order I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is this.


When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House rose to move the notice of Motion on the Order Paper, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) interrupted, and, in response to that interruption, you said that in view of his submission you would not propose the Question from the Chair until the points of order had been dealt with. Therefore, I submit to you, Sir, that the two hours laid down in this Motion only begin to run when, in fact, the discussion of this Motion starts. Perhaps you would be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to give your ruling on that before I submit my nine points of order of which I gave you notice.

Mr. Crookshank: When I rose, I at once said, "I beg to move." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good hon. Members saying I did not say it. They may not have heard it, but I said it. It was after that—

Mr. Adams: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know which hon. Member is addressing the House. I called Mr. Crookshank.

Mr. Crookshank: I now—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the right hon. Member is going to speak to the point of order.

Mr. Crookshank: I was hoping to be able to continue the speech which I began.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member has already moved the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I heard him. I said that I would not propose the Question until I was satisfied about the point of order, but that does not prevent the two hours from running. The proceedings on any Motion moved by any Member of the Government for supplementing this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been moved."] The right hon. Member moved the Motion. That is the point I have been trying to draw to the attention of the House.

Mr. Adams: On a point of order. Since you are still accepting points of order on this Motion, Mr. Speaker, may I now submit to you the nine points of order which I previously submitted to you?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me with his nine points of order, I have covered them in what I have already said, but, if he likes, I will write to him in extenso.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that you agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had moved his Motion and made his speech. If that is so, has he then exhausted his right to speak in the House?

Mr. Speaker: He was interrupted by a point of order.

Mr. Michael Stewart: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new one?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I have two points of order to raise, one of which is connected with the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wands-worth, Central (Mr. Adams) when you said that although the right hon. Gentleman was moving his Motion you would not impose it on the House. I think I am correct in saying that all hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House understood that to be a clear indication that the discussion would not begin until you proposed the Question. I wish to ask you this question. Until you had proposed the Question to the House would it not have been out of order for any hon. Member to have expressed an opinion on the actual Motion moved by the Leader of the House? We could not begin to discuss it until you had proposed it to the House. Therefore, I submit that the two hours cannot possibly begin until, by proposing the Question, you have made it possible for us to discuss the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: My Ruling is simply that the two hours run, by virtue of the Order, from when the proceedings are commenced:
… shall … be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced.


The proceedings commenced when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Motion. On the point about delay in proposing the Question, it is not my Custom to propose, nor would I propose, a Question to the House if I thought it was out of order. Therefore I delayed proposing it until I had heard what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had to say. I think that was entirely proper. The time runs from when the proceedings commenced.

Mr. Crookshank: May I continue my speech? I hope the House will now—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has a point of order.

Mr. Stewart: I wish to raise a point of order. I think there is ground of objection to the Motion which has not previously been raised and which did not occur to me until I heard your Ruling on an earlier point. I understood you then to rule that it is proper for the House to be invited to accept Lords Amendments en bloc despite the fact that some of those Amendments may have the assent of the entire House and others may be strongly disagreed to, partly be-because they involve questions of Privilege. We have heard, and have of course accepted, the Ruling you have given that it is proper and in order, although quite unprecedented, for that to be done.
I think it will have occurred to you that that is an extraordinary modification of the way in which the House has, up to now, exercised its Privileges. It further appears from a subsequent Ruling of yours that the power which the Government have by their Allocation of Time Order, to put us into that extraordinary position and to make that extraordinary modification, arises from an Order which the House passed on 24th November. It would appear, therefore, upon adding those two Rulings together, that in the Order of 24th November there was implicit the possibility of the House's being required very seriously to modify its way of protecting its own Privileges.
I would ask, first, if you would be good enough to tell us why it was that you did not on that occasion draw the House's attention to the fact that it was doing something which would very seriously affect its way of protecting its

own Privileges? I would have thought that if the Order of 24th November contained implicitly in itself so serious a modification of our procedure on Privilege that the House's attention ought to have been drawn to it and some appropriate entry should have been made.
Since that was not done, and since neither by you nor by anybody else was it drawn to the attention of the House that we were dealing with a matter of Privilege, the points I put to you are that it cannot be assumed that the Order of 24th November did, in fact, have any effect upon Privilege because no such notice was taken and no such warning was given; that the Motion of 24th November was in fact defective, that this Allocation of Time Order is based upon a Motion which was defective, and that therefore not only would this Allocation of Time Order be out of order, but possibly all the proceedings taken by the House under the Order of 24th November might be out of order and might have to be repeated.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: To the question why did I not draw the attention of the House to the effect that the Order might have on Privilege, it is a sincere and honest answer that it never occurred to me. That is the truth of it. On the other hand, as I have pointed out, the House has by no means abandoned its control over Privileges. It will have an opportunity of voting for or against a block of Lords Amendments, some of which, I have indicated, involve matters of Privilege. The House has absolute control over these Privileges—the majority decides.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I raise a narrow point arising out of your statement, Mr. Speaker, which I listened to with great care? I would be out of order in raising any question on the Motion, seeing that it has not yet been moved. You must have given great consideration during the week-end to all that is involved in these proceedings. Have you considered the aspect of it to which I shall refer, and the implications arising out of it? You said there were seven points of Privilege raised in the Lords Amendments. Can we have an unequivocal answer whether Mr. Speaker considers that he is protecting the rights of Members of this House in allowing Lords


Amendments to be put en bloc in this fashion?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Speaker to say whether or not the House will waive its Privileges. That is for the House. My duty is to draw the attention of the House to the matter, and that I have done.

Mr. Crookshank: Mr. Crookshank rose—

Mr. Bing: I merely thought it might help the House to come to a right and proper decision on this matter if you could give me guidance on a point of order. As the Lords Amendments will not be put separately, it will not be possible for the Clerks to be authorised to make the normal entries in the Journals. If those entries were not made, the Privilege of the Commons of deciding that they alone can deal with financial matters would go. I submit that that is the reason why those entries are always made. The House ought to know whether in fact, if the Amendments are all put en bloc, it will be possible for the Clerks to make the usual entry in regard to Privilege having been waived, specific entries, where the attention of the House has not been called to them by you, and where the matter has been dealt with in an omnibus fashion.

Mr. Speaker: I will see that the necessary entries are made in such a way as to safeguard the position.

Mr. Crookshank: May I now continue the speech which I began at 3.57 p.m. with the words "I beg to move"? I propose to be very short and not to fill up all the remaining time, although if I accepted some of the arguments which were put forward in points of order in such an important matter it would not be unreasonable for the mover to speak at length. I want to be very fair. Apart from that, a good many of the points which I would have made in explanation have emerged in the Rulings which Mr. Speaker gave. For example, the Motion arises out of one of 24th November, by which there is no doubt that two hours is the maximum. Of course, we do not have to take the whole of the two hours which could be devoted to this Motion before we come on to the Amendments themselves.
It is true, as Mr. Speaker pointed out. that the original words in the Motion of

24th November did not refer to Lords Amendments. Paragraph 15 of that Motion was a general precautionary power for varying and supplementing, if need be, that Order. It was made to deal with any situation which might arise. I think it was Mr. Speaker, and not one of those who raised points of order, who used the phrase: "to cover unanticipated circumstances." That is exactly what we are dealing with; today, unanticipated circumstances.
Never before in the long years that I have been in this House has any attempt been made by any Opposition to filibuster Lords Amendments at all. It never has been the case in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor now."] Perhaps I might be allowed to give some statistics before I close. So, having wisely taken precautionary powers, this is the occasion on which it is necessary to use them. With regard to the Motion itself we put in the proviso in case there was an Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. There was not today, and so we need not bother about that. The Motion says that Mr. Speaker should put the single Question after four hours.
I see that the Opposition have put down an alternative of:
or at half-past ten o'clock, whichever is the later.
We had calculated that, perhaps with points of order and so on, we should have got on to this Motion at four o'clock, which is just about the time that we did in fact get on to it. Two hours on that made it six o'clock and another four hours made it ten o'clock; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) cares to' move his second Amendment about half-past ten o'clock the Government will be very pleased to accept it. If we do not take up all the time now there will be that amount extra for the Lords Amendments.
I put it to the House that in all the circumstances this Motion is fully justified. If the Opposition have any doubt about that I ask them to examine their own consciences, because they really have aided, abetted and encouraged the most gigantic filibuster on these Lords Amendments. Nothing like this has occurred at any rate in the last 28 years or, as far as I know, ever before. What has happened in fact is that the Opposition have.


one might say perhaps cleverly—I do not know what the right adverb might be there—exploited a weakness in House of Commons procedure. They have tried, and with some success we must all admit, within the rules of order to reopen issues on the Bill itself in a way far more than had ever previously been thought possible on Lords Amendments. There evidently is some weakness in our procedure. They have exploited it, and this is the result.
But if the procedure of this House is reduced to a mockery, and I say deliberately that that is what happened, then the House—[Interruption.] I want to be brief so as to leave time to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South. I hope that the Opposition will let me say what I wish to say. I intend to say it. If procedure is reduced to a mockery it has always been the case in the past that the House has had to devise ways and means to prevent itself from being stultified. As I pointed out when I spoke on Thursday night, if we went at the pace at which we have been going, and even if what are from the Government's point of view the necessary closures were moved and accepted by the Chair—and of course that rests with the Chair—we should require some 90 more hours of time to conclude the Lords Amendments on this Bill.
We have so far. out of the 71 on the printed list, cleared 13 Lords Amendments and 14 Opposition Amendments to the Lords Amendments. I do not want to go through them all, but I wish to make this point. Of these 71 Lords Amendments 24 are consequential or drafting: of the rest seven were put forward as a result of representations by the British Transport Commission and some of them are known to have Opposition support, at any rate, in principle; five were put forward to meet Opposition criticism; three more went some way to meet the Opposition point of view; and others are either non-controversial or merely clarify the existing provisions of the Bill. That is what all the bother has been about.
That being the nature of the Amendments, we considered that two days was reasonable and fair. Many of my hon. Friends thought it was more than reasonable, but that was the time we proposed.

On Thursday the Government first suggested concluding the business that night by some arrangements, and then later suggested that we should finish tonight by some arrangement, but that was not accepted. Therefore, a Motion of this kind clearly became necessary. We ask the House, by accepting the Motion, to complete the proceedings today.
Taking the Lords Amendments as a whole, it cannot possibly be claimed by anyone that they are either revolutionary in their nature or inconsistent with the Bill's original underlying policy.

Mr. Bevan: We still object to them.

Mr. Crookshank: Object to them, that is all right; but one does not have to object for ever and ever and talk at undue length on every single Amendment whether one approves of them or not. I should like to make it clear, because this is an important point, that the other night, when I foreshadowed this Motion, the right hon Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South said—I leave out the words which are not relevant—
This is … going to mean that important Amendments … like the great Clause which we are now considering … will not be properly discussed here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 1579.]
Sir, we spent seven hours on 22nd April and seven hours and 10 minutes on 23rd April, and we have not finished this Clause yet. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that 14½ hours so far—or 18½ hours if we include the various Adjournment Motions connected with the Clause—is insufficient for discussing a Lords Amendment which is not disagreeable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think that is the whole and sufficient answer.
There is one other general consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has several times said, "What is the hurry? Why do it this week? Why not next week? Any old week will do." Usually Lords Amendments to Commons Bills and Commons Amendments to Lords Bills fall to be discussed towards the end of the Session. They are, therefore, up against a time factor, because neither House wants to lose a Bill on which it has spent a great deal of time.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South will accept this. He has said it himself. I think he gave evidence to the Select Committee on procedure and said it


there. He will accept that it was a wise thing and right from a Parliamentary point of view that the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, should bring forward their major Bills as soon as possible after the speech from the Throne and deal with them as early in the Session as possible so as to clear them out of the way and then afterwards ask Parliament to deal with other business in an orderly manner.
That is exactly what we have done this year. The result is that it brings the Lords Amendments before this House long before the end of the Session, as we are now, and without the possibility of the time factor having any influence on the amount of time devoted to their discussion. Therefore, it allows, as it has done on this occasion, delaying tactics rather than hustling tactics.
That shows some weakness in our procedure. That is why we propose this Motion today. There is no shadow of doubt that the Opposition have had ample time and every opportunity. The rights of the minority have been amply safeguarded. There have been 35½ hours already at the disposal of the Opposition on these Lords Amendments—and that is on Amendments which are either drafting, consequential, concessions to right hon. Gentlemen opposite or part concessions. Nothing new which was obnoxious to the Opposition has been brought in. It has been all give and yielding, more or less to the Opposition.
If we are not to make a farce of all our debates, a limit must be set when this sort of thing occurs. I regret very much indeed that the generous proposals that we made on Thurstday were not accepted, but in all the circumstances the Government have no option to proposing this Motion that the proceedings should be brought to a conclusion today.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I rise to oppose the Motion, and I must do so as briefly as possible because unfortunately we have very little time at our disposal as the time given to points of order must come out of the time devoted to this Motion. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for indicating that he will accept the Amendment to make the hour 10.30 p.m., which merely follows the precedent that was established in the original Allocation of Time Order.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have been using an undue amount of time. In fact, he accuses us flatly of filibustering. I do not deal with this point at length because I have often dealt with it before, but the fact is that the Bill was wrongly handled earlier on. There was the Guillotine, and a whole lot of things of importance were deliberately started in another place which ought to have been started in this Chamber. Consequently that has tended to increase the discussion here.
I should like to quote from the Leader of the House when he used language far different from the language about filibustering that he now uses. He said on 21st April:
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the general tone of the debate and that matters of substance have been discussed.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted that somewhat more time was being given to the consideration of the Lords Amendments on this Bill than was usual, and explained why it was. We accept that this is not quite the same as other Bills for which there has not been a time-table in the earlier stages—that, of course, is obvious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,. 21st April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 977.]
There is no sign there of an allegation of filibustering. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman pays a compliment to us by implying that the general tone of the debate was good, and that matters—

Mr. Crookshank: What date was that?

Mr. Morrison: It was on 21st April.

Mr. Crookshank: A lot has happened since then.

Mr. Morrison: As a matter of fact the spirit of the discussion since that time and of the speeches on the Amendments, has been substantially the same as it was on the first day. There is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's point about it being customary for Lords Amendments to have to be dealt with at the end of a Session. That is perfectly true and it rather tends to create a rush. I agree with that. In fact, I gave evidence on that point. I do not like it and I tried to get substantial Bills earlier. But the fact that one had to take Lords Amendments on a Bill quickly at the beginning of August or at the end of July, is no reason why we should do so artificially on this Bill.
Let me remind the Leader of the House, if he does not already know, that


the "Scotsman" of today, a Conservative newspaper, states:
Most politicians had thought 'the Lords' to be a moribund issue, but their position as an amending Chamber is once again brought into sharp relief by the Transport Bill. A more conciliatory approach from Mr. Crookshank might have averted the trouble the Government now face; for if the 'guillotine' does fall at ten o'clock tomorrow night"—
that is, tonight—
with most of the Lords Amendments still outstanding, many M.P.'s, not all of them Socialists, will feel that less than justice has been done.
That is from an eminently reputable and respectable Scottish newspaper with the editorial opinions of which we on this side do not agree very often. That is that newspaper's view and that will be increasingly the view as time goes on.
The Amendments made to the Bill in another place were substantial. On the question of the offers made by the other side of the House, it is true that the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday offered that day and Monday. In our view that would have meant an undue rush to finish the Bill. We said, "Give us Tuesday as well and then we will agree, and we will terminate the debate at 11 o'clock on Thursday, Monday and Tuesday." Therefore, all this talk about 90-odd hours is nonsense. We were not claiming 90-odd hours. It may be that in the ordinary way 90-odd hours might be occupied. Who can say? We do not know the time that each Amendment will take. But we offered that the Bill should be finished tomorrow. I submit to the House, therefore, that the 90 hours argument is sheer nonsense.
It boils down, therefore, to one House of Commons Parliamentary day. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope that he keeps it in mind—that, of course, the Government can carry their Motion, and presumably they will do so, but that is not the end of the story. It must not be thought that the Government can arbitrarily save days. The Opposition have still their duty to do and at the end of the time, instead of making a profit out of their Motion, believe me, the Government will make a loss.
I often had conversations with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip when I was Leader of the House. He would sometimes say, "The Opposition are asking

for so and so." I often, though not always, said straight away, "It is all right." Sometimes I said, "That is unreasonable. I do not think that they have a right to that, you know, and I should have thought that we ought to resist it." He would say, now and again, "Herbert, that is all very well. You can resist them, but they have a little bit of a case —not much I agree—but if you do resist them they will take it out of you on another date and you will lose in the end." On that reasoning I would say, "All right, Willie. Give them what they want."
That is part of the elementary art of leading the House of Commons, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had similar experiences. The trouble with this Leader of the House, with this Chief Whip, if not with this Prime Minister, is that they get a special delight out of saying, "No" to the Opposition. They do not believe how much sweetness and light can be caused and created—[Laughter.]—I am using the words of Matthew Arnold, who was a great writer, by a "Yes" now and again. I submit to them that they are being foolish.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): It is, of course, not possible to say, "Yes" when one has not been asked for more time. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when one day was suggested by us there was no complaint either in private or across the Floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had asked for three days, we might have come to some compromise. If one is not asked, how in the world can one give?

Mr. Morrison: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that anything announced by the Government, whether one day or two days, is a definition, and so when these announcements were made as to those days on which the Lords Amendments would be considered, that was all right. That was for that week. Why should I worry about it? But to presume that because I did not say anything about it as acting Leader of the the Opposition, it was therefore accepted as a sufficient time is really wrong.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Let the right hon. Gentleman ask the Opposition Chief


Whip whether he accepts the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the particular negotiations on this subject.

Mr. Morrison: As I understand it, there were no negotiations, except those conducted last Thursday, and between us I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and I have given an accurate account of what happened on those occasions. If our proposition had been accepted, there would not have been any question of 90-odd hours. The Government, of course, will not save the day that they think they will save. It is an illusion, and if the Government insist upon this Motion, which sets aside the authority of this House, they will have passed the legislative initiative to another place.
As to the new Clause, the so-called "Company Clause," that was suggested in part by the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) in the Committee stage. In principle it was supported by us. There was ample opportunity for the Minister of Transport to have made a draft Clause between then and the Report stage for, as a matter of fact, the end of the Committee stage was on 18th December and the Report stage did not begin until 4th February.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It is a complicated Clause. I warned the House that it would be a lengthy one, but that it would give expression to what I thought was the general view of this House. The complications—and no one knows this better than the British Transport Commission—meant a long period of negotiation and argument and, as we have a bicameral system, it seemed prudent to continue the conversations until we had arrived at a wise decision, which we did. We have now spent two days in debate on that particular Clause.

Mr. Morrison: I have two points to make on that question. One is that the Minister had from 18th December to 4th February which, for the sake of bringing it before the House and not leaving it to another place, was surely worth while making an effort about. The second point is that if it is such a complicated Clause and took all this time, to such an extent that the House of Commons is now to be cheated of its consideration, surely we are entitled to have adequate time to consider

it? I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
We must have the right of amending Lords Amendments, and the right to discuss them. Now we are taking the matter as a single question. I presume that means that we are asked to vote for or against the whole of the Lords Amendments together, irrespective of the individual merits of each. As we cannot express ourselves on each individual Amendment we shall have to divide against the lot at the end, not on their merits but as a protest against the procedure which is being adopted.
The argument might be that we should not vote at all. That is a nice situation in which to land the House of Commons. It is the logical course, but it is not a fair proposition to put to us. This was not done even on the main Order. The Government Amendments were put seriatim at the end of the Guillotine period. So far as I know, on the Allocation of Time Order itself there is no precedent for the procedure which we are now following. Moreover, it is really an insult to their Lordships' House. They have taken a lot of trouble about the Bill and they have devoted many hours to its discussion. Now they are being told that we are not going to take any notice of their Amendments on their merits; we are not even going to discuss them. It is for another place to consider how far they can protect their rights as a revising Chamber, the Tory Government having said that the Lords Amendments shall not be considered upon their merits.
This is a serious matter. It is a revolutionary constitutional precedent which, in my view, the Conservative Party will regret. It is utterly foolish from the Conservative Party's point of view, as I think it would have been from ours. The Prime Minister once said, before he was an orthodox Conservative—when he was in the process of one of his transitions—that he was a constitutionalist, that being the best middle-of-the-road description he could find. He cannot any longer be described as a constitutionalist; he is unconstitutional.
5.45 p.m.
It is impossible, without prejudice to any further discussion, to go any further in the matter, but I protest with all the earnestness at my command about what is being done. It is a grave injury to the


House of Commons; it is a serious assault upon British Parliamentary democracy; it is damaging to our Parliamentary system, and I hope against hope that the House will reject this very grave and serious Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House.
I beg to move, in line 6, after "read," to insert:
or at half-past ten o'clock, whichever is the later.

Amendment agreed to.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It shows what is the state of muddle into which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have got themselves, at the end of these extremely lengthy proceedings on the Transport Bill, when, at half-past three this afternoon, they voted against the suspension of the Rule, which vote, if successful, would have denied them the opportunity of securing the Amendment which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has just obtained.
I commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman in the state of mind he has reached at the end of these lengthy proceedings. He also took part in the general threats and accusations against another place which have characterised these proceedings for the last few hours. But in 1947, when many Amendments to the Transport Bill of that year came back to this House from another place, the Socialist Government were in power and that, surely, was the time when they should have made these vociferous accusations against the other House.
There was opposition; we had two lengthy all night sittings; but the debates were pretty regular and the Closure was not unduly moved. Why?—because the Socialist Government were opposing all the Amendments coming from another place and because we were observing the proper constitutional duties of an Opposition in not indulging in undue provocation. Surely the country will pay no attention whatsoever to the threats and vituperation which have come from Members opposite about the future of the House of Lords. If they had wanted to do something about it they had the opportunity when the House of Lords opposed the 1947 Transport Bill. They did not do it then.
Now we have a situation when their Lordships have offered very worth while, valuable and constructive suggestions to this Bill. My right hon. Friend gave some particulars and I should like to mention a few others. It is important that the House and the country should realise the full extent of these filibustering techniques. Seventy-one Amendments were made to the Bill by their Lordships' House. Twenty-five of these were in the nature of drafting Amendments; others were for the purpose of clarification, or were consequential upon other Amendments.
The remaining 12 all concerned major points which, with the exception of one or two, were fully debated by this House in spite of the Guillotine, or perhaps because of it. The strange thing about a Guillotine or Allocation of Time Order is that it restores proper debate to the House of Commons. It enables at least one-half of the House of Commons to take part in the discussion.
All these 12, with the exception of one or two, were fully debated in Committee—the lifting of the total of B.R.S. vehicles from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.; the sale of B.R.S. vehicles by companies as well as in transport units; the extension of the locus standi of certain local authorities before the Transport Tribunal; the qualification of the 10 per cent, temporary increase in charges to avoid unfair imposition; the composition of the Commission, and the application to Scotland; re-definition of "loss of employment" with regard to safeguarding pension rights; the eleven-twelfths of the B.R.S. fleet which were to get the initial grant of licence; and finally exemption from the levy—a very important one—up to 30 cwt.; all those were fully covered by debates which took place in this House before the Bill was sent to another place.
Statements were made in the national Press over the weekend—particularly by the political commentator in the "Observer," who normally observes the proceedings of this House quite closely, and who ought to be far more responsible in his utterances than he was last Sunday—that their Lordships' House had practically re-drafted the Bill. Those are wholly false and wrong statements. It was in response to pleas made from


both sides of this House, and particularly by the Opposition, and in response to pledges given by the Minister that another place formulated their Amendments and performed the excellent job of work on the Bill it did perform.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from "put" to the end of the line, and to insert instead thereof, "the Question on each of."

I would then propose to move as a consequential manuscript Amendment: in line 10, at the end, to insert:
That the Lords Amendment or the Amendment to the Bill, as the case may be.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, as amended."

The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 276.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hornsby-Smilh, Miss M. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Horobin, I. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Dodds-Parker, A. O.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hurd, A. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hen. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Baker, P. A. D.
Drayson, G. B.
Hyde, Li.-Col. H. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Jennings, R.


Barber, Anthony
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baxter, A. B.
Erroll, F. J.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Beach, Mai, Hicks
Fell, A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Kaberry, D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fisher, Nigel
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Kerr, H. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lamb Ion, Viscount


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fort, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Foster, John
Langlord-Holt, J. A.


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bishop, F. P.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Leather, E. H. C.


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bossom, A. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lindsay, Martin


Boyle, Sir Edward
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Linstead, H. N


Braine, B. R.
Godber, J. B.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gower, H. R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Longden, Gilbert


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Low, A. R. W.


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McAdden, S. J.


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McCallum, Major D.


Carr, Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. s


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Channon, H,
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McKibbin, A J


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hay, John
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maclean, Fitzroy


Cole, Norman
Heath, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Colegate, W. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cooper, San. Ldr. Albert
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Markham, Major S. F


Crouch, R. F.
Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Marples, A. E.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hope, Lord John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)




Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Redmayne, M.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Maudling, R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Renton, D. L. M.
Teeling, W.


Mellor, Sir John
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Molson, A. H. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Gonway)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Nicholls, Harmar
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tilney, John


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Wield, Basil (Chester)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Turton, R. H.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Vane, W. M. F.


Nutting, Anthony
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Vesper, D. F.


Odey, G. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Snadden, W. McN.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Osborne, C.
Soames, Capt. C.
Watkinson, H. A.


Partridge, E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.
Wellwood, W.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, G.


Pitman, I. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Storey, S.
York, C.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)



Profumo, J. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Raikes, Sir Victor
Studholme, H. G.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Rayner, Brig. R.
Summers, G. S
Mr. Drewe.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Albu, A. H.
Collick, P. H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Grey, C. F.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Awbery, S. S.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grimond, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie


Baird, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Balfour, A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bartley, P.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Bence, C. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Benson, G.
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H.


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Donnelly, D. L.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Blackburn, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Edelman, M.
Holman, P.


Boardman, H.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holt, A. F.


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowen, E. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hoy, J. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brockway, A. F.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Follick, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Burke, W. A.
Foot, M. M
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, B.


Callaghan, L. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Carmichael, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Glanville, James
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Chapman, W. D.
Gooch, E. G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Clunie, J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)







Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Oswald, T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Padley, W. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Keenan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


King, Dr. H. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Summerskill, Rl. Hon. E.


Kinley, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Swingler, S. T.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Panned, Charles
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pargiter, G. A
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Parker, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Lewis, Arthur
Paton, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lindgren, G. S.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Logan, D. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


MacColl, J. E.
Poole, C. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McGhee, H. G.
Popplewell, E.
Thornton, E.


McGovern, J.
Porter, G.
Timmons, J.


McInnes, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughlon)
Tomney, F.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


McLeavy, F.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, H. C.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rankin, John
Wallace, H. W.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reeves, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Manuel, A. C.
Rhodes, H.
West, D. G.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mellish, R. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Messer, F.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Royle, C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Monslow, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W A.


Moody, A. S.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willey, F. T.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Short, E. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Morley, R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mort, D. L.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Moyle, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilson, Rt. Harold (Huylon)


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Murray, J. D.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Nally, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Snow, J. W.
Yales, V. F.


O'Brien, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Oldfield, W. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. Arthur Allen and




Mr. John Taylor.

It being more than two hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [24th November] to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings to a conclusion.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 275.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[6.5 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Allan, R. A. (Paddkigton, S.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Campbell, Sir David


Alport, C. J. M.
Bevins, J, R. (Toxteth)
Carr, Robert


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Birch, Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Black, C. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston


Arbuthnot, John
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bowen, E. R.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cole, Norman


Baker, P. A. D.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Colegate, W. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Baldw n, A. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Banks, Col. C.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Barber, Anthony
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Baxter, A. B.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Beach, Maj, Hicks
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crouch, R. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullard, D. G.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)




Davidson, Viscountess
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


De la Bare, Sir Rupert
Kaberry, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Profumo, J. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.


Dormer, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Renton, D. L. M.


Drewe, C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W.


Duthie, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lindsay, Martin
Roper, Sir Harold


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Erroll, F. J.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Russell, R. S.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Schofied, Lt.-Col. W.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, R. Donald


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Foster, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCallum, Major D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Snadden, W. McN.


Gammans, L. D
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Soames, Capt. C.


Gamer-Evans, E. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKibbin, A. J.
Speir, R. M.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gough, C. F. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Grimiton, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Storey, S.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harden, J. R. E.
Markham, Major S. F.
Studholme, H. G.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Summers, G. S.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maude, Angus
Teeling, W.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maudling, R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hay, John
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Mellor, Sir John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heath, Edward
Molson, A. H. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Tilney, John


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Touche Sir Gordon


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molt-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, R. H.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollis, M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Vosper, D.F.


Hope, Lord John
Noble, Cmdr. A H. P.
Wakened, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Odey, G. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wellwood, W.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Partridge, E.
Williams, Sr Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams R Dudley (Exeter)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wills, G.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
York C.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.



Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch
Mr. Herbert Butcher and




Mr. Richard Thompson.







NOES


Adams, Richard
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mort, D. L.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llannelly)
Nally, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, WiIIiam (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Baird, J.
Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
O'Brien, T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.


Bartley, P.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hamilton, W. W
Orbach, M.


Bence, C. R.
Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bevan Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pannell, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Mill M.
Parker, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Paton, J.


Boardman, H.
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Bowden, H. W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bewles, F. G.
Holt, A. F.
Poole, C. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Brookway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Porter, G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hudson, James (Ealing, W.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reeves, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Carmichael, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Richards, R.


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Chetwynd, G. R
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clunie, J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Royle, C.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skaffington, A. M.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Snow, J. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Edwards. John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mac Pherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Evans, Edward (Lewestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Follick, M.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Messer, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Thornton E


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W.
Tomney, F.


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Glanville, James
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Usborne, H. C.







Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Wallace, H. W.
Wigg, George
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Weitzman, D.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Willey, F. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


West, D. G.
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Arthur Allen and




Mr. John Taylor.


2. If, on the expiration of four hours from the time when the Order of the day for the consideration of those amendments is read, or at half-past Ten o'clock, whichever is the later, those proceedings have not been completed, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put, as a single question, the question that the Lords amendments, so far as not already agreed to

or disagreed to, and (if it has not been already disposed of) the amendment to the Bill (Schedule 4, page 50, leave out lines 22 and 23) standing on the notice paper in the name of Mr. Lennox-Boyd, be agreed to:

Ordered,

That the Order [24th November] be supplemented as follows:

1. The proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

Provided that if at this day's sitting the said proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) the time at which Mr. Speaker is to put that question shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon the Motion for the Adjournment.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 6, at end, insert new Clause "A."—(Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares.)

(1) If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may make over that property, together with any such rights or obligations of theirs as in their opinion can conveniently be made over therewith, to a company under their control in the shares of which no other person than they themselves have any beneficial interest, with a view to the subsequent sale of the shares of the company:

Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid.

(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.

In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, if the Commission, in making up their books for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure, and the requirement that the net value shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over of the property shall be construed as a requirement that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice.

(3) Where the Commission have made over any property to a company under subsection (1) of this section, they shall proceed to the

sale of all the shares thereof as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to that end shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase (in one parcel) of all those shares, on conditions specified in the notice or ascertainable in a manner specified in the notice:

Provided that—

(a) no invitation to tender under this section shall be issued without the approval of the Board; and
(b) if it appears to the Commission that the sale of the shares by tender would be inappropriate and would be unlikely to secure the best possible price for the shares, they may, with the approval of the Board. sell the shares (in one parcel) otherwise than by tender.

(4) In determining whether any lender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender or offer shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.

(5) No tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section.

(6) If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.

Where Scotland is affected, the Minister shall consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before giving any directions under this subsection.

(7) Where property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section, section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 shall have effect as if—

(a) the company were and at all times since the passing of this Act (or since its incorporation, whichever is the later) had been a subsidiary company of the Commission and the Commission were and at all times since the passing of this Act had been the holding company thereof;
(b) the Commission, in every application made for a licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, being an application made before the making over of the property, had signified to the licensing authority their desire that the provisions of the said section twelve should have effect as respects the company;


(c) the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twelve to Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, included a reference to section fifty-nine of the Transport Act 1947, subsections (1) to (5) of section six of this Act and Part II of the First Schedule to this Act:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(8) Where the shares of a company are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if the company had, at the time of the transfer of the shares, purchased as or as part of a transport unit all the vehicles owned by it on that date which were then authorised vehicles under an A licence granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act or were specified in a then pending application for such a licence as vehicles intended to be authorised thereunder and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the vehicles had been so purchased; and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said First Schedule to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to motor vehicles sold as or as part of transport units shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that—

(a) the total number of trailers specified by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part I of the said First Schedule in applications for special A licences shall not exceed the number of trailers made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company;
(b) in paragraph 4 of the said Part I, the reference to the Commission shall be deemed to be a reference to the company and the reference to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer of the shares.

(9) The Commission, in making over vehicles to a company under subsection (1) of this section, may, by notice to the company, designate certain of those vehicles as additional vehicles, and in that event—

(a) any application by the Commission for an A licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act and any licence granted in pursuance of any such application shall lapse so far as it relates to any motor vehicles so designated, but without prejudice to the substitution of any such vehicle for another vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II;
(b) the Commission shall give all such notices and make ail such applications as are necessary to secure that no such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, is included in an A licence so granted, otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution as aforesaid and that any such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, which has been included in such an A licence

otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution is removed therefrom;
(c) any such vehicles, being trailers, shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection.

(10) Any property made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of section five of this Act to have been disposed of as or as part of a transport unit, but if, after any property has been so made over to a company but before the shares of the company have been transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any property of the company (whether part of such property or not) is transferred to the Commission, the property so transferred to the Commission shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to become property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and shall be dealt with accordingly.

(11) A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and
(b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose of any of its property to the Commission,
but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.

(12) Until the shares of any company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff), to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission themselves.

(13) Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1).

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
The House knows that this Amendment was amended by the Government accepting an Opposition Amendment in the latter part of last week. I recommend hon. Members, when they have time, to read again the debates on the Committee and Report stages of the Bill in this


House for, although it might not so appear from the tone of the debate last week, it is, in fact, true that this Lords Amendment very largely gives expression to ideas from both sides of the House during those lengthy debates.
I listened throughout those debates and I heard with interest speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey), the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), the right hon. Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison), all advocating, in Committee, something of this kind; and, on the Report stage, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) all advocated a structure somewhat akin to this.
I must say, therefore, that I felt that, when, after long deliberation and indeed at the urgent entreaty of the British Transport Commission, we decided on this Clause, it would have an almost clear run through the House. I am making no complaints and I certainly do not wish to create any "atmosphere," but we have already had two days on Amendments to this Lords Amendment, and a great many points which I would normally have dealt with at some length have already been discussed—why, for example, the shares are all to be in one parcel; why, for example, the Commission ought not to be allowed to retain a proportion of the shares and relieve themselves only of that part which gives them control; why the Disposal Board should play any part in company formation.
All these and many other points to which, normally, I should have directed the attention of the House have, I think, been quite thoroughly ventilated. Fifteen hours' debate on a Clause which largely expresses the point of view of both sides of the House and which was welcomed by the Labour peers in another place is, I think, giving fair consideration to a matter even of this importance.
The case, as submitted to me by the Commission, which I accept, was particularly this: It would, they said, assist

them in the orderly disposal of the road haulage assets if there was some company structure of this permissive kind. It would assist them also in maintaining efficient maintenance and operation during the very difficult period of transition, and so would reduce disturbance and loss to traders. Here I may say that although the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has been frequently quoted in this House, the very generously worded letter from its President, sent to me some weeks ago, has not been much quoted from the benches opposite. I think it fair to say that the fear of trade and industry have been, in so far as they were real, largely allayed by this permissive company structure.
Again, the Commission argued to me that company structure of this kind would enable the book debts and records to be transferred in an orderly way, and that, with a living entity in the hands of the Commission one day and passed to a purchaser the next, there would not be the hiatus there might otherwise be with the sale only of transport units. They said, also, that it would ease the stocks position, and that, in their view—and this prevailed very much with me—it would reassure the members of their staff who, not unnaturally, are uncertain as to their own future position.
As I have said, the Government have accepted these arguments. They were advanced in the House of Commons with great eloquence by both sides. Some people, I think, advanced them because they hoped thereby that some of the purposes of the Bill might be, if not frustrated, at any rate, held up; and others, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, both advanced the argument because they wanted the Bill to work better, and believed that it would work better in this way.
I must, of course, make it quite plain that the main purposes of the Bill remain quite undisturbed. The Road Haulage Executive must dispose of its property as quickly as is reasonably practicable without avoidable disturbance, and allow a chance of entry or re-entry to people of slender resources. It seemed to us that the best way of achieving this object by the company structure was to amend


Clauses 3 and 4 in the form of the new Clause.
If the House decides to accept this Amendment, additional power will be given to the Commission to make over to companies under their control such properties and rights as they think fit within the power to be exercised in agreement with the Disposal Board. As the House knows, disposal companies must be still owned by the Commission and all the shares must be disposed of in a single parcel. They can be sold by tender or, if the Commission and the Disposal Board think better, by some other means. The companies, as units, will carry with them five-year automatic licences and the capital loss position is altered to take account of this alternative method. The employees will remain under the negotiating machinery of the Commission until the companies are disposed of.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: Would the Minister care to explain, in the setting up of these companies by the Disposal Board, if any consideration will be included for the goodwill in that particular section of the Commission's property which is being disposed of? I refer to the global figure of £33 million of goodwill which, on present indications, is to be lost to the taxpayer because no provision has been made by the Government to recover it under the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Precisely the same procedure will be there as for the sale of units. We hope to get the best price both for the units and the shares in the company. Any gap between that and the value of the assets will be met through the levy. I would direct particular attention to the capital loss Amendments in the Bill under which a large, substantial, extra sum will be given to the Commission. If we get on, as I hope we shall, I can explain some of these points when we have reached Clause 12 or the new Schedule.
As I have explained to the House during the Committee stage, the employees of the Transport Commission will, of course, remain in their negotiating machinery until the transport units are sold. It would be impossible for them to stay under the same machinery after sale, but there are provisions for the protection of employees' interests and the wages council structure applies and will

apply to these transport units sold as units. Precisely the same consideration will apply in the case of the companies, and the same protection under the wage council structure will exist there.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell(Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Are we to understand that if there has been a sale of these transport units or this company structure, the wages council structure of the transport industry will remain applicable to these employees who are being sold under these arrangements?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would deprecate the suggestion that the employees are being sold. There is no such suggestion. Clearly, the arrangement arrived at between the Transport Commission for their employees and the Road Haulage Executive and the unions concerned cannot be automatically applied to the purchasers of the transport units. I do not want to give any such suggestion. They will remain, as I have said, in the company structure and within the negotiating machinery between the unions and the Commission up to the moment of sale of the companies. After that, of course, they will pass into the machinery provided for by the Wages Councils Act.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Does the Minister mean that by the sale of every operable unit or group of lorries or whatever we call them, automatically the equivalent section of the employed personnel will be transferred, and, if so, is there any guarantee for them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course not. I have been at pains to point out that there is no suggestion that people should be automatically transferred with the sale of the transport units or of the companies. It remains a free choice of the men concerned whether they choose to take employment in the companies before they are transferred, after they are incorporated or after their transfer. It equally remains open to the men to make their own decisions in regard to transport units. Those men who choose to go to the companies, to new purchasers, or others employed by the companies subsequent to the sale will be under the negotiating machinery provided for by the Road Haulage Wages Act and the Wages Council structure.

Mr. Popplewell: The position is rather complicated, and I suggest that the


Minister is making rather heavy weather of it. Do I understand that what he is now saying is that the employees in these transport units or company structure, when the thing is sold, go over; or do I understand him to be now inferring that they may have the right to keep in the employ of the Commission, and the Commission will find a job for them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If there is any danger of misunderstanding the position, I will explain it again, perhaps more clearly. It remains entirely open to the men to decide what they want to do. If they are in the employment of a company which has been created by the Commission but not as yet sold they will remain under the wages structure machinery negotiated between the unions and the Commission.
6.30 p.m.
When the company is transferred it would clearly be impossible for the same machinery to operate because the agreements have been made with their employers—the Commission—and they would no longer be employed by the Commission. They would then pass into the ordinary structure of the Wages Council machinery. I hope that is plain. If a man does not want to take employment with the unit which is being transferred to a company there is absolutely no obligation on him to do so. If he seeks to find employment with the Commission in some other capacity and there are openings for him, naturally the Commission would consider that, but one must face up to the fact that the Commission, being deprived of the bulk of its road haulage activities, will not be able to offer such a wide field of employment as it can today.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Apparently the right hon. Gentleman did not get my point. Does it mean there is no legal liability upon the Commission or those who purchase the transport units to maintain continuity of employment for the men concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here throughout the lengthy debates we had on compensation, but it was made clear then that where people's positions were worsened because of the Bill the compensation provisions applied. If we are able to make progress, I should like to explain how one of the Lords Amendments deals

with the need to look after people who, though they have not lost their employment in the legal sense, may, in fact, have lost it. This is a highly complicated matter. I am advised that if we transfer the Commission's activities to a company, in law, the men have not lost their employment although, in fact, they lose it. I hope the hon. Member realises that an interruption in the continuity of employment, provided the other conditions are satisfied, would qualify the men concerned under the regulations that I shall be obliged to make for compensation for a worsening of their position. We have had many arguments and discussions about this; perhaps they were not arguments, because there was general agreement in the House that the Government were proceeding in the right way by following the precedent of the 1947 Act, although doing it much faster than the Opposition did it.

Mr. Jack Jones: This is the first time that I have spoken throughout the stages of the Transport Bill, but I am interested in this point. I understand that when the lorries are transferred the men concerned have an option whether to go with them or not. If the terms of the Bill are carried out and an employer taking over lorries plus men tells certain men at the end of a fortnight that they are no longer required by the company because of certain factors, what is the position of the men?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Had the hon. Gentleman been able to attend the earlier debate he would have known that in dealing with the form the regulations would take provision was made for just that sort of case. It would clearly be inequitable to treat a man who was sacked a fortnight after the acquisition as being in a different position from someone who was not offered employment at all. The hon. Gentleman will find that that has been taken care of. The regulations can be discussed in the House when they come along, and I hope that they will be found to be wise and humane.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Why not put it in the Bill?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: For the same reasons that prevented the Socialists from putting the regulations in the 1947 Act, even though they were asked to do so by some of their back-benchers.
I have been asked how many such companies will be formed. It must clearly be for the Commission and the Disposal Board to decide that. The companies are supplementary to the main proposal to sell by transport units, and it must not be thought that the bulk, or anything approaching the bulk, of the vehicles will be formed into the company structure.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who, as soon as constitutional points or lengthy debates are not in order, does not seem to take an active interest in the Transport Bill—I am sorry that he does not, for he has enlivened our debates a great deal by his interventions in the last few days—what power the companies had to operate vehicles. For the purposes of the record, their power will be in their memorandum of association and their right will be in their automatic A licences.
I am convinced, and the Government are convinced, that the company structure will smooth the transition and will be in every way advantageous to the Commission and the country alike, and this view is generally accepted by the Commission, by trade and industry and, I believe, at heart, by the two major parties in the country.
The company structure also raises the question of credit facilities. It might be advisable to take this opportunity of making one further reference to credit facilities. In the debate on the White Paper in May last year I said:
It is far too early to say whether any particular facilities will be needed by the intending purchasers of transport units other than those normally available to them, but Her Majesty's Government will watch this problem with particular attention. Any action which the Government may or may not be able to take must be consistent with general monetary policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 491–2.]
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have recently made statements in the House about the provision of facilities by the banks. The relevant dates, for hon. Members who wish to refer to them, are 16th and 20th April, only a few days ago. The Chancellor said:
The Government … have advised the banks that it would be consistent with Government policy that loans for such purchases

should be made in suitable cases. It is, of course, in the national interest that road transport, by being returned to private enterprise "—
I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept this—
should be able to give increased help to industry in general whether at home or in efforts to increase exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 642.]
That is self-evident; I believe it will be the general opinion of the country after a little experience.
With reference to the banks situation, I was closely questioned last week about a statement made by the Chairman of the United Dominions Trust. I pointed out that the formation of the company to which he referred was announced in all the national newspapers on 5th February last. Nonetheless, some hon. Members—I do not think they were many—seemed to think that I was guilty of a lack of candour in not having mentioned to the House a fact that must have been read by millions. I hope I shall be forgiven for saying that the charge of lack of candour seems a little strange in the light of a Motion which is on the Order Paper about which I hope that at an early date the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will think fit to say something.

Mr. Callaghan: I have always considered that a personal statement must be non-contentious and I could not guarantee that any comments that I would have to make about that would be non-contentious. But if the right hon. Gentleman cares to represent to the Leader of the House that he should give us time to debate the issue I shall be very happy to do so. I understand that some of my hon. Friends will want to put down an Amendment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Far be it from me to interfere with such an important thing as the Parliamentary time-table. I am now engaged upon the concluding stages of the Bill. Certainly, the suggestion of a lack of candour came a little strangely at that time. I do not like charges of this kind, and I felt that that charge was singularly ill-deserved.
I have considered whether there might be any other aspect of the matter on which the House would like information in advance of the time when the ordinary procedure of the House would inevitably


and rightly have brought it to their attention. There is one point which will eventually come to the House in the form of a Statutory Instrument, which can be prayed against. It will be in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President who has authorised me to say that it is his intention in the event of the Transport Bill becoming law to make an order amending the Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreement (Control) Order, 1952, to exempt from the requirements of that Order hire-purchase agreements relating to the disposal of Road Haulage Executive vehicles. No facilities will be made available to the United Dominions Trust or their customers that would not be available equally to others.
In my concluding words in winding up my speech on this structure, I should like to suggest that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they are genuinely interested that there should not be large monopoly holdings so as not to be antisocial, there should be opportunity for some smaller people to play a part in road haulage. I believe that the Opposition think there is room for them, even though they think their role will be limited. Therefore, there must be assistance of some kind, for if assistance were not available to the small man many of them would not be able to re-enter the industry. In that case it would only be the buyers with substantial financial resources who could come in, a result which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite pretend to fear, and which our policy is designed to prevent.
I therefore commend to the House this Amendment to set up the company structure which, in the union with the sale of transport units, will make an efficient and businesslike disposal of the assets, as, indeed, is the intention of the Bill.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Listening to the Minister speaking, I was reminded very much of our proceedings during the Report and Committee stages, when we were operating under a Guillotine. I say that particularly because the right hon. Gentleman was following the old technique which he pursued during those proceedings. He would refer in the course of his speeches, as he did this evening, to Amendments on the Order

Paper which he knew perfectly well would not be reached or discussed.

Mr. H. Morrison: And he had no intention that they should.

Mr. Davies: He had no intention that they should be discussed, and he was cynical in suggesting to the House that such Amendments would come under discussion. When he referred to the Schedule concerned with the losses on the disposal of assets he knew full well that within the 3¾ hours left to us it will be quite impossible to reach that Schedule, which is nearly at the end of the 70 Amendments from their Lordships' House, of which, so far, only 14 have been discussed.
The Minister referred to the length of time which had been taken over the discussion of this Clause and suggested that it was not necessary to discuss the subject further at any great length because we had a number of Amendments down which we had discussed. I would say to him that if he had accepted some of our Amendments then the time spent on this discussion would have been very much shorter, and, what is more important, there was every reason why some of our Amendments should have been accepted.
In replying to most of the debates on those Amendments, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury was most unconvincing. No convincing argument was forthcoming to justify the rejection of our suggestions, with one very minor exception. I refer, for instance, to the question of disposals in one parcel, on which there were some very strong arguments presented from this side of the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever), as well as others. In the face of those arguments the Economic Secretary was unable to justify the rejection of those Amendments.
6.45 p.m.
The Minister has said that this Clause now expresses the general idea and views which were voiced from both sides of the House, but I question that. It has been interesting to notice that during our debate so far neither the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) nor the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) has expressed his view


on any of the Amendments which we put forward. I hope that one or both of these hon. Gentlemen will this evening give us their views as to the extent that this Clause meets their desires as expressed during the Committee and Report stages.
The purpose of the proposals which were put forward from both sides of the House for having a company Clause along these lines was that it would prevent a disorderly disposal of the national assets of the Road Haulage Executive, and that a better price would, therefore, be obtained. Further, it meant that the existing services could be maintained, and, as a consequence, the amount which it would be necessary to raise by the levy would be less because of the reduction in the anticipated loss.
The Minister has told us that the Clause is somewhat akin to the ideas which were expressed, but I would submit to the House that there are a number of reasons why this Clause, providing for the creation of companies in exceptional cases, does not really meet our desires. In the first place, the Disposal Board are the final authority in deciding whether the companies shall be set up by the Commission or not. The original view that was expressed was that the Commission should decide when it was expedient to form companies because it would satisfy those purposes I have already referred to, more orderly disposal, better price, continuance of existing services without loss during the time of disposal—

Mr. I. O. Thomas: And security of employment for the men concerned.

Mr. Davies: Yes.
In this Clause we have the power vested in the Board to veto the action of the Commission. The Commission are to be subject to the Board, and they cannot exercise their powers without the approval of the Board. This takes away from the Commission the final judgment as to the national interest. We have argued here—I do not want to repeat those arguments at length—that the Disposal Board are a prejudiced body, that they will not be able to examine these facts objectively, and if the Commission goes to the Board and put their proposals for

the disposal of certain assets because they consider that that would be the most satisfactory way to do it, it may be against the interests of persons serving on the Disposal Board and they may exercise their veto. By bringing the Disposal Board in the Minister has prevented the Commission from deciding what is in the national interest and put that power in the hands of a prejudiced party.
Secondly, the Clause as it stands is unsatisfactory because it is inconsistent by insisting that Clause 3 (3) of the Bill shall govern whether these companies shall be formed or not. The House will recall that that subsection, in determining what are to be transport units, attempts to secure that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry should have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources will permit them to do so only if they are operated on a small scale, and so on.
Then it limits the number of vehicles in any unit to 50 except with the consent of the Minister. Making that the test as to whether companies shall be formed or not, or insisting that regard has to be had to that primarily, means that in many cases where it might be desirable for companies to be formed, and where a better price would be obtained if those companies were formed, they will not be created because Clause 3 (3) will operate.
We had some argument on that during our debates last week and I will not go into it again. However, I contend that this Clause is inconsistent with the purposes of the Clause as stated by the Minister, which is to obtain a better and a higher price. It means that if there are people desirous of re-entering the industry, and they are available to do so, priority has to be given to the creation of transport units over the creation of companies. Those people may not be able to pay such a good price as would be obtained if the companies were formed and the shares were disposed of as favourable opportunity arose. In this way, however, the assets have to be disposed of in accordance with the priority given to the small man, whereas better prices could be obtained through larger units which cannot be formed unless the Board to approves.
Further, in connection with the question of the small man coming in and


obtaining credit facilities, the Minister has made an important statement this afternoon. Again, I must protest that when we are discussing this Clause at this late stage of the proceedings under the threat of the Guillotine, the right hon. Gentleman makes an important statement regarding the hire-purchase facilities which are to be given to the small man entering the industry.
Why is the Minister so partial towards assisting financially those people? He is not content with disposing of these national assets, of breaking up this great national network of services throughout the country and of disintegrating it, splitting it up, atomising as it were; he is to assist people to purchase these national assets cheaply and to give them special favours, special privileges, special credit. That is unjustifiable. It is helping one's friends, as we knew the Government intended to do, in regard to the disposal of the road haulage assets.
What is the justification for giving special credit facilities for the purchase of these national assets when their purchase will contribute nothing whatever to production in this country? The basis of credit today, as far as priority is concerned, is increasing production and contributing to the export trade. In neither case does that apply to road haulage. If the Government enable small people to come in to the road haulage industry and create more competition on the roads, and if thereby there results a different type of service than is being provided today, that will not in any way contribute to production. It will not result in increased productivity nor will it in any way assist the export trade.
As I said before, transport does not produce anything. It does not create production. All it does is to carry that which is produced. So there is no justification for changing the credit facilities which are to be made available in order that the small man can come into the industry. In passing, I would refer to the reference of the Minister to the United Dominions Trust. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it was quite unfair for my hon. Friend to have suggested that he was guilty of a lack of candour in this respect. He said it was monstrous.
I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. We were debating

the Transport Bill on Report on 4th February and in the subsequent week, and during those debates no word was said by the Minister to us in the House about the discussions which had been going on with the United Dominions Trust. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was in the papers. On 5th February it was stated in the papers that arrangements had been made, but in that statement there was no reference to the fact that the Government were involved. The statement did not say that the approval of the Minister had been given.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to go over again what was debated twice—once on an Adjournment Motion three days ago—and I do not suppose it would be in order. I made it plain that approval did not mean formal approval, but that it was consistent with Government policy and to that extent I had approved and welcomed it. I repeat, I welcomed it. It seems to me to be an inescapable part of the machinery to get the smaller men back into the business.

Mr. Davies: If the Government approved the action which was to be taken on this matter, if it were a matter of Government policy as the Minister states, then surely the House should have been informed at that time. The House was discussing the Transport Bill. Here was an important statement issued to the Press. No reference was made by the Minister to the fact that it had his approval. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that no Questions had been put down in the House at that time and he was surprised, but, clearly, the reason why no Questions appeared on the Order Paper was because we did not know that the Government had any responsibility in this matter; we did not know that the Government were involved in any way whatever with the United Dominions Trust.
At that stage, we had no reason to harbour the suspicions which we have since harboured and which we have since found were completely justified.

Mr. E. Partridge: Monstrous.

Mr. Davies: Another reason why this Clause does not fulfil the purposes for which it was intended is that the Commission are to be compelled to dispose of


all the shares in these companies in one parcel. That nullifies the effect of the companies Clause of ensuring continuity of service and employment and the continuity of existing services and of orderly disposal. If the Commission, as soon as the company is formed or as speedily as is reasonably practicable, dispose of all those shares, it will have to offer them to the market and accept whatever tender is put up for that one parcel of shares.
Our idea, in putting forward our Amendments on this subject both in the earlier stages of our debates and during last week, was to enable the Commission to retain that interest in those companies where it was considered desirable that it should do so. Where it would have been possible to dispose of a certain number of shares and, by retaining part of the shares, perhaps a minority interest, there would have been a better price obtained because there would have been an operating unit which would continue in operation without a complete change of management, we envisaged their doing something with some section of the road haulage industry as is done in the case of the 'bus companies.
If the Commission were able to retain an interest, it would maintain those assets and enable their more orderly disposal as opportunity arose and thus ensure a smaller loss. Certainly, it could be done in the case of some of the existing services, whether one takes the Parcels and Smalls Division or the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division or any others. As the Bill stands, none of these can be continued in operation, but if they were converted into companies it would be possible to continue a Commission share in them, and it would not then be necessary for them to be broken up and their assets dissipated.
7.0 p.m.
I see that the hon. Member for Batter-sea, South (Mr. Partridge) is strongly objecting to what I am saying. If he wishes to intervene, I should be glad to give way. I have not heard him participating in our debates. The fact remains, however, that neither Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, the Parcels and Smalls Division nor the trunk services, can be maintained if the Commission are limited to the number of vehicles which the Bill permits; but if the Commission were able to form those into companies and

to retain a share in them, those existing services could be maintained. It is highly unlikely that any financial group would be able to put up the capital to take over any one of those sections of the road haulage industry and to maintain it as an existing service on its present lines. It would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, and in the case of Pickfords probably well over £1 million, in order to do so.
The Minister found it necessary, in introducing the amended new Clause, to speak at some length, but he was not able to clear up quite a number of obscurities which are still in the Clause. He was able to make some important statements, but there is inadequate time to debate them if we are to get on to any of our other Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman has not revealed any justification for refusing to enlarge the Clause in such a way that it gives the priority of decision to obtaining the best possible price for the national assets. That is what should be in the forefront of the minister's mind the whole time in regard to the disposal of the road haulage industry.
This companies Clause goes a little way towards that, but a very little way only. Had the Amendments which we proposed been given greater consideration and been received with more sympathy and understanding by the Minister, instead of their automatic rejection, except for one very minor one, this companies Clause would receive far more support than, I am afraid, it will get. It does not go more than a very short way towards making the disposal of these assets more orderly.
The disposal of these assets is all that the Minister is concerned with. He wants to break up the road haulage undertaking, to scatter its assets among a large number of individuals and groups, and, in the process, to lose a substantial sum, which will ultimately have to be made up out of the levy. Far more important, however, is the fact that in that disposal—and in this the Clause makes very little contribution and gives little assistance—there will be disturbance and dislocation of the transport industry.
The Minister, in his usual manner, has tried to give the impression that he has been meeting the House in putting the Clause forward. It receives a large measure of support, but the right hon.


Gentleman has not met the House more than a fraction of the way. Therefore, it does not go far enough and it cannot have our full support.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: It would be churlish of me not to express, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and myself, our gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the Lords Amendment. I have been invited by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) to say whether the Amendment meets the purposes which my hon. Friend and I had in mind when we moved our original Amendment in Committee. My answer is, unhesitatingly, "Yes; it does meet our purposes."

Mr. Callaghan: Entirely?

Mr. Jones: The Amendment adds to the Bill a permissive power which before did not exist. Nothing, therefore, is lost. On the other hand, much is gained. Nothing that has been said in the course of the last week, and nothing today in the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, detracts in any way from that central fact.
In so far as there has been controversy, it has been over two points. The first is over the question of the extent to which use should be made of the company procedure. As I understand the thought of hon. Members opposite, they would like a sale overwhelmingly by way of company. That has never been my thought. I have always thought that a considerable proportion of the undertaking of the Road Haulage Executive could be sold in small lots, and, therefore, to small men, without disruption. That was implicit in our original Amendment, and my hon. Friend and I made it explicit on the Report stage. On the other hand. I have always believed also that a residue of the undertaking could not be sold without disruption except by way of the company procedure. I have had in mind in particular the parcels service and some of the trunk services.
As I understand the Amendment in its present form, without prejudice to the needs of the small man it is for the Commission and the Board jointly to determine, in the light of the circumstances confronting them, how many companies shall be set up and what their size shall

be. I do not think it is for any of us to prejudge their decision. I do not wish to do so, and for my part I prefer to leave it there.
The second controversy has been over the question whether the ownership of the companies when established should be single or mixed; that is to say, whether we shall provide for a company to be owned in part by private people and in part by the State or by the Commission. It is true that in our original Amendment on the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, and I made possible a mixture of ownership, but my right hon. Friend has rejected that aspect of our original proposals.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Is the hon. Member satisfied?

Mr. Jones: Despite that interjection, I think on reflection that my right hon. Friend is right, and he is right on a practical ground.
We have a precedent for mixed ownership in the case of certain bus companies which are in part owned by the Transport Commission and in part by the B.E.T. As far as I have been able to discover, and I have made what inquiries I could, neither of the two parties is satisfied with that arrangement. If the State ownership is more than 50 per cent. it might as well be total State ownership; if the State ownership is less than 50 per cent. it might as well be complete private enterprise. Any mixture in practice makes for a disunited Board and a lack of harmony in policy.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would not the hon. Member agree, on the other hand, that in the case of some of the services to which he has referred, it would be well-nigh impossible to obtain the capital in order for them to be transferred to private enterprise if they are to be retained in their present form and if the existing services are to continue?

Mr. Jones: I do not think so. I grant that the proposal of mixed ownership has certain superficial attractions, to which I succumbed, but in view of the practical objections which I have stated I believe that the attractions should not lead one astray. When our Amendment first met with resistance, so impeccable and unexceptionable did my hon. Friend and


I think it to be that we were rather surprised; but perhaps even submission has been shown to have its reward, and the earlier rebuff is now all the greater reason why we wish to say, "Thank you very much."

Mr. Popplewell: If the House wants any justification for the attitude adopted by hon. Members on this side in protesting at the limitation of time to which we have been subjected and at the procedure that is being followed with the Bill, there is no need to look any further than to this Lords Amendment for full and complete justification of the stand taken by my hon. Friends. We are in a real difficulty on this proposed new Clause because, in effect, we are now having a Second Reading debate after taking the Committee stage and that is bound to put hon. Members in a difficult situation.
In December this matter of establishing companies was referred to by many hon. Members, but the Minister said today that although we discussed it in December and on Report stage, in February the Government were still not in a position to make these alterations and we had to wait until the matter was discussed in the House of Lords. We are not really surprised at that, because it is in keeping with the muddled thinking of the Government on this Bill and the de-nationalisation proposals from the start. If the Bill continued under discussion a little longer one does not know whether there would not be great and cardinal changes yet made in the mind of the Minister because changes have been taking place from day to day since its inception.
In Committee we supported the idea of the company structure. We supported the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) because we realised the necessity for adopting something on these lines. But we violently disagree with the Minister on the way in which he proposes to establish these companies for disposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) rightly drew attention to the Minister's decision to dispose of all these shares in one parcel, but the Minister was adamant about it and at once destroyed the argument he previously put up about trying to safeguard the interests

of the small man. Only by the small man coming into the company structure and being able to amalgamate can he come into this business. Alternatively, we are in favour of them having the same power to take over these companies as the United Dominions Trust and others.
Surely the Minister must know that it is wrong to give the purchasers of these transport assets the right to decide through their Disposal Board how the companies shall be made up. Surely everyone will agree that it is wrong to allow purchasers to decide what they want, but that is what the Minister is saying in this Clause. He is giving that right to the Disposal Board, consisting in the main of representatives of the purchasers of the assets, and taking away from the Commission the right to decide how the companies shall be made up. That is wrong and justifies one of my interjections in which I suggested that it was a sell out.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We dealt with the position of the Disposal Board—which it would not be in order to discuss now—in the general debate and showed that what the hon. Member is saying is not so.

Mr. Popplewell: It may have shown that to the Minister, who is prejudiced, but everyone else knows that my words were justified then and are now. The Minister comes down at this stage in these proceedings, as distinct from the stages of the Bill, and makes an important announcement saying that he will give to the small businessmen the rights of the hire purchase system, that he is going to give them financial assistance and has had a word with the banks and told them to give assistance to the small men equal to that of the United Dominions Trust and equal in priority to export orders.
That is a very important statement because it is indicative of the rake's progress which the Government are making with this Bill. It is indicative that they know very well this is not a popular Measure in the country, it is not a popular Measure with the users of transport, but is a popular Measure with the Road Haulage Association, which contributes to the Tory Party funds, and only to that Association.
7.15 p.m.
Knowing this, the Government have to give additional financial inducement to these companies about which they propose the Disposal Board shall decide the way in which they are to be made up. This is a shocking piece of Parliamentary legislation, and I desire at this late stage to register the strongest possible protest at this sell-out.
We were interested to hear the Minister explain what is to take place so far as employees are concerned. He made a big point of the fact that until the date of disposal they would remain the employees of the Commission. I do not know why he elaborated that point, as it was obvious that they would so remain. We are interested to know what is to happen to them after that date. The Minister says that they can go to the companies or else—or else what? They can go on the streets and look for employment. There was no guarantee of employment by the Commission themselves.
If these assets are disposed of, a lot of these men will be looking for work when the companies are established and they will not be sure of the same fair and reasonable conditions of employment as under the Commission. People engaged in these undertakings which will be transferred must realise full well that, when the transfer takes place, for a lot of these men it will mean a return to the old philosophy of walking the streets to find another job. We can wrap up compensation Clauses for people disposed of in this way, but, as we know from past experience in the industry those Clauses will not meet the full needs of these people who would lose their jobs.
We are considering the Second Reading of this important Clause and I suggest that the House would be well justified in registering emphatic protest, by the largest possible vote we can muster against it, about its make-up and the way in which it is to dispose of the assets.

Mr. McLeavy: I was rather surprised when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) considering that when he proposed his Amendment on the company structure I was impressed and thought at that time he and I had a common view on the matter.
In opening the discussion this afternoon, I thought that the Minister was rather unfair to hon. Members on this side of the House when he suggested that all the virtues for suggesting the company structure and all the honesty of purpose belonged to hon. Members opposite. I went to very considerable lengths to assure the Minister on many occasions that the introduction of politics into transport is destroying a vital service to the nation; and the Minister knows very well that I made clear, even when the original Transport Bill was before us, that I believed that the application of the provisions of that Bill were essential to the well being and the development of our transport industry.
The hon. Member for Hall Green has really eaten all words he uttered when he moved that very important Amendment on the company structure, because the Minister has told us this afternoon that the company structure is only complementary to the selling out of the transport industry to small holders. What the Minister has told us this afternoon is that the Government have accepted the arguments on the company structure but are only to allow it to apply in the last resort, when all other methods of disposing of the assets of the Road Haulage Executive have been exhausted. That is contrary to the conception which any reasonable-minded individual would have of the best interests of the road haulage industry.
What is essential is not that the Government should sell in small units to small individuals who cannot possibly give the service to industry that is required: the essential need, if we have to sell out at all, is to sell to large holding companies large blocks of the road haulage assets in order that they can be run in the interests of industry. It is no use the Minister coming to this House and saying, "We have arranged that the President of the Board of Trade shall come along and announce some kind of amendment of the credit provisions in order to allow special credit facilities for people buying the assets of the road, haulage undertaking."
I wish to remind the Minister that there may well be quite a number of people who may come along in a speculative mood and purchase certain sections of the transport industry, and they may not


understand the industry. They may fail to render that service to industry which is essential to our export drive today and to the development of our industries generally. The Minister and the Government are taking a very grave risk in bringing forward this Amendment today. The principle of company ownership is important only in so far as it is able to provide the service which industry requires.
I have on many occasions told the House the tragic experience of ex-Service men who after the First World War went into the transport industry, putting in the money which they had accumulated—their compensation or whatever it may have been. They went to the wall and lost their money because they did not understand the job, and also because they were not able to provide that type of service which industry required. The same will apply today. People will be tempted to buy under the special facilities which this Government are proposing to give, and they too will fail to be able to carry on; and it may well be that the United Dominions Trust will, by that method, be able to get hold of quite a big number of defaulting small firms, and in that way we shall get a system of large ownership.
When the Minister was speaking my hon. Friends raised many points on the question of the employment of the men engaged in the industry as and when the units were transferred to their new ownership. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell us that prior to the transfer to new ownership the employees would still continue under the conditions of employment and rates of pay agreed upon with the Transport Commission. The Minister did not go far enough and explain to the House what the position would be where the vehicles would be purchased and the men would not be taken over with them.
It is quite true that the Minister said that he would bring in regulations to meet that position, but it is obvious that the whole of this Bill has been designed, in the first instance, and has been repeatedly amended by the Government both in this House and in another place, in order to assist all along the line the purchasers of these vehicles and to give them special consideration, attention and

protection; but there has been nothing in the Bill which can really be said to give protection, or adequate protection, to the workers engaged in the industry.
Here we are today dealing with these Lords Amendments, with a Guillotine in operation, in circumstances which will prevent us from being able to debate to the fullest possible extent the outstanding Amendments sent to us from another place, or those Amendments put down to the Lords Amendments, and we are in some difficulty because of that fact. We shall have to tell our people in the transport industry that with all the good will in the world we have not, in view of the limitation of time, been able to go into these Lords Amendments, and particularly this one, in the way we ought to.
I am sure that our case on the Disposal Board is a good one. I hope that the Minister will not insist upon the one-parcel disposal of the shares or the stock of the Transport Commission because if he does that we shall not get the type of company required. I would have thought that it would have been far better for the Transport Commission to be allowed to retain some, even if only 40 per cent., of the shares. That would not give them control over the industry, but if they were allowed to retain 40 per cent. there would at least be at the disposal of the new organisation some section of it capable of giving advice drawn from experience in the transport industry. This Clause has gone some distance towards the viewpoint we had, about the company structure, but it has not gone as far as is necessary in the interests of the industry, and industrial development in this country.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) seemed to say that this Bill, this new Clause, was largely designed to assist such people as the United Dominions Trust and the people who will buy the new transport undertakings. I hope that is not the case. I trust the primary purpose is to give an adequate transport service to the people who use it, and to protect the workers in the industry through the normal laws and the activities of their trade unions. A great deal has been said about the profits


which may be made by the new undertakings. For those who believe in private enterprise, it is of the essence of the system that there are losses as well as profits, and, however unpleasant it may be, we have to face the fact that there may be a considerable loss made in the transport industry.
Like the hon. Member for Bradford, East, I regret that this Clause has been brought in from another place. In the debate in Committee the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), to whom we are much indebted for the existence of this Clause at all, said it was the pivotal Clause of the entire Bill. That was in Committee. Surely there should have been an adequate debate at that stage on the pivotal Clause of the Bill, and if necessary, further debate on the Report stage which followed. I think it a pity that the Minister rejected the arguments advanced from his own side both on Committee and on Report and then brought this matter back from the Lords.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member will refer to the debate on Report, he will see something quite different from what he has just said. I expressly announced that I would be asking the House to consider such an Amendment which I would be introducing in another place. I said:
I would ask hon. Members not to be deceived by the volume of lines which may be necessary in order to give effect to this very simple improvement, but to realise that, though the machinery may appear complicated, on closer examination it will not be so formidable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953, Vol. 510, c. 1935.]
The hon. Member can hardly describe that as rejecting the Amendment.

Mr. Grimond: I will withdraw some of what I said but not all.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Thank you.

Mr. Grimond: I very much doubt whether it is an adequate answer to lay before the House. I notice, on turning over the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the discussion on that point ended within half a dozen columns or so, and that was the whole of the discussion in this House. It was extremely short on a point described by the Minister's own supporter as the pivotal Clause in the Bill. However, I withdraw my accusation that the right hon. Gentleman rejected it out of hand on Report.
This is an extremely important Clause and an improvement to the Bill. There has been considerable discussion on the merits of selling off the units as what were called "going concerns" or as "physical assets." That has sometimes taken the form of debate between the advantages of a big company and the small man. I am a supporter of the small man, not for any sentimental reasons, and not because I like to see a lot of people of different names running vehicles on the roads.
If the small man cannot offer the service which a company can offer, then regretfully I think he must go to the wall. But the whole argument is that there are certain types of transport services which the small man could do best were he given the opportunity. In certain circles which normally support the small man there seems to be an air of defeatism. It is argued that we must protect the small man, bolster him up and give him special help. But I believe that in certain types of transport the small man can do better than the big company if he is given a fair chance, and that is what we want to see.

Mr. Popplewell: Would the hon. Gentleman say what kind of job he has in mind?

Mr. Grimond: There are various jobs in the rural areas—

Mr. Popplewell: Such as?

Mr. Grimond: In my constituency there are jobs which a man who is almost a half-time operator could do better and more cheaply than a company. That is all I am saying. I do not wish to see him bolstered up or supported if he cannot give as good a service as the big man.

Mr. Popplewell: I should like the hon. Gentleman to say what type of transport undertaking a small man can do more efficiently than a company which has schedules and a collecting service.

Mr. Grimond: Where a schedule is needed, or a collecting service, the company could do the job better. But in the rural areas, where a man who wishes a special job done can ring up his neighbour who has a lorry and who would be able to do it for him.
I think it fair to say that if we are going to de-nationalise the transport industry, special credit provisions will have to be provided. We are not allowed


to debate the principle of this Bill, which is that the industry shall be denationalised. But it is a unique type of operation and I do not think it unfair for the Minister to say that it requires a certain relaxation of credit or hire purchase facilities. I think it vital, however, that in this connection there should be no favouritism, and I should have welcomed some further statement from the Minister about how that is to be done. In the granting of credit it will, in my opinion, be only too easy to weigh the scales in favour of one undertaking or type of undertaking.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): That is not a matter for the Government. The granting of credit will be done by the banks themselves. All we have done is to make it clear that the granting of credit in those circumstances is within the four walls of Government policy.

Mr. Grimond: I am always charmed by the modesty of the Treasury, but I can only assume that the Economic Secretary has not spoken to his bank manager lately. Has he tried to get any credit out of his bank manager? If so, he has been told by his bank manager, "I am sorry, but it is the Treasury who forbid me to do this." I do not think the Treasury are so ineffective as they like to make out during transport debates.
There is also the question of selling of shares in one parcel. I am a little doubtful about what that means, and I doubt whether it is right. During our discussions on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hall Green I raised the point, and I thought he agreed with it, of a man who wanted to buy back a transport undertaking and could not do so because he could not raise the money which might be required. I suggested that he might be allowed to purchase the controlling equity capital while the Commission retained an interest through debentures. I am not certain why that cannot be done. I do not see why the sale needs to be done in one parcel.
I realise that one of the matters at the back of the Minister's mind is that he does not want nationalisation through the back door. He does not want the Commission hanging on to the assets. But we must assume that we are all eventually

going to bat on the same side, or else the transport system of this country will never work. There may be occasions when the buyer will not want to buy a whole parcel. He will only be able to do so, if at all, by raising money at exorbitant rates. I think that the Minister might look at that again. I do not see that it will mean any more than a slight altering of the wording, but I am not at all convinced that it is necessary to write in so firmly a provision that the shares must be sold off in one parcel.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: Like many other hon. Members, I want to address myself, not to the Clause itself, but to what the Minister said about it. Originally, I think it would be accepted by the House, the suggestion was welcomed on the grounds that it would help to carry out the purpose of the Bill.
The Minister said this afternoon that this Clause would be used only in exceptional cases, and the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), going back to the Committee proceedings in this House, when the Minister opposed the Clause, now says he visualises this Clause being used to dispose of the residue of the undertakings. His actual words were "the residue of the undertaking being sold through the formation of companies"; in other words, to deal with the whole of the parcels services and the trunks services, both of which are very considerable services.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to clarify what I meant? I meant a residue in time. First, one ought to detail and market the small lots; there is no difficulty there. Then, we come to the more complex structures, which are a different proposition and require much more attention. As I see it, the demarcation of companies is secondary in time.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because he used the word "residue" in relation to parcels and trunks services. I can understand his point of view regarding the residue of the parcels service, but the House should be made aware of the immense size of the present parcels and trunks undertakings.
The small man, who has been quoted so often in our debates, is covered by an earlier Clause of the Bill—Clause 3 (3)—


and this company structure, welcomed as the Minister said it was in another place, ought to be regarded as the main means of disposal after Clause 3 has been used in the way which the Minister outlined to us; in other words, to facilitate the entry of people with little capital.
All of us will recognise that the attractive part of an undertaking is not comprised in the buildings, stores, depots and so on, but those things which acquired a scarcity value for so many years; in other words, the vehicles, and especially those vehicles which have been modernised in accordance with the new trend in vehicle building. I mean vehicles of a larger size and greater unladen weight. If we take into account the trend of recent years, vehicles ought to be fairly easy of disposal, but there is a danger inherent in that disposal from the Government's point of view, in that the vehicles which are attractive will be quickly and easily disposed of, and the undertaking will be left, not with the smaller part of its assets, but with the greater proportion, in value.
7.45 p.m.
If we take the value of an undertaking as a whole as £100 million, vehicles will represent £40 million and buildings, stores and depots £60 million. If we are to dispose of the more attractive part of the undertaking—the vehicles—we shall then be left with the unattractive part, which would be a bad bargain from the Government's point of view.
I therefore suggest that the Minister might have second thoughts, not upon the Clause itself, because his approach to the company structure is conditioned by the words he used in the House and not by anything inherent in the Clause itself. What I am suggesting is that whether the company structure is to be relied upon for the disposal either of the greater or the lesser part of these undertakings is a matter, presumably, of Ministerial decision, and, on business grounds, the facts to which I have referred must be taken into account in a business-like manner in assessing the means whereby these exceptionally large undertakings are to be disposed of.
May I emphasise another point which has been referred to more than once in the debate and to which I should like the Minister to pay exceptional regard? The men engaged in the industry have

been disturbed in their minds for a long time, and we must admit that this Clause relating to the company structure is not an attraction to people who have been playing a part in a national road haulage undertaking, with hours and conditions of service negotiated on an easily recognised national basis, with steady prospects of employment facing them and with conditions of service which have improved in recent years.
The Minister must take his stand in regard to the points I have been making about the use of the company structure in the disposal of a greater proportion of the undertakings, but he must know that, ever since May of last year, these people have been disturbed and rightly concerned about their future and their conditions of employment. That must be understood by us all, and anything that we can do to help to minimise their fears as to their future conditions we certainly ought to do.
If the Minister could say that an extension of the company principle would be considered by him, in the interests of the staff, I think that would help, because the smaller the employer, in general, the less secure are the conditions which he can offer over the distant future. I think we must all recognise that the larger the undertaking the greater the security which can be offered to the workpeople, and the more easily employer and employee can negotiate wages and conditions of service. I think that workpeople everywhere recognise that wages and conditions of service are much more easily negotiated with the larger undertakings who are able to offer more secure conditions of employment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What, then, are the basic sociological reasons which cause hon. Gentleman opposite to object to what they call "Tory Party big business"?

Mr. Hargreaves: At the moment we are discussing a Bill which the noble Lord has advocated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am afraid the discussion is getting a little wide of this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Hargreaves: I ask the Minister to consider using the company principle in a much wider sphere than his earlier


remarks today would lead us to suppose that he will. I have attempted to argue that owing to the fact that conditions of employment are usually better in the larger organisations, the natural fears of the people employed in the industry will be more easily allayed if the Minister will have some regard to the arguments which have been addressed to him on those lines.
The interjection of the noble Lord makes plain his total lack of knowledge of these things and what he said is not worthy of attention. I enjoy his occasional excursions into our debates because I recognise that they are fanciful ones.
There is another point in connection with the Clause to which attention ought to be paid and which originated in the quarter from which we expect this kind of excursion to come. On the Committee stage of this Bill, an Amendment was moved which the noble Lords in another place have reframed, recognising that it was utterly silly and illogical in its origin and phraseology.
I refer, of course, to the phrase "too few hands" which has been debated many times. The same kind of phraseology is used in the Clause at it comes from another place. This phrase, surely, is another means whereby a dozen different meanings might be attached to the whole of the Clause which attempts to deal with the avoidance of competition. The care that has been taken in this Clause to confine the work of the Commission regarding the company structure is patently different from the method adopted later in the Bill with regard to the railways.
I think that the Clause might have been much more broadly framed in order to allow the Commission to carry out the principle of the Bill along the broad lines announced by the Minister in the same way that, later on, the Minister says to the Commission, "I want from you a means whereby the House can take cognisance of a method for reorganising the railways." Such a method might well have been the basis for a Clause such as the one with which we are dealing at the moment, thus leaving the broad lines of policy to the Commission.
I am sure that had that been done there would have been a different approach from that outlined by the Minister, that

is, concentration on the sale of units as such. By using the three methods of disposal in order to meet the requirements of each geographical area we should avoid the real disturbance which I fear the Bill will cause, not only to the Transport system throughout the country, but to the people engaged in the industry. The fears which they express have been with them for more than 12 months and have not been dealt with by the Government in this Bill.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: One can well understand this particular Clause being introduced in another place. It is, of course, just another example of the various admissions which the Government have made since the original White Paper concerning the awful mess in which we find this Bill. Had we been able to debate these Lords Amendments more fully instead of having a Guillotine Motion, this would have been all the more patent. It is, in fact, an admission by the Government that they are unlikely through the Disposal Board to dispose of the assets. After all this talk about letting the little man come in and do the job, about free enterprise and about Tom, Dick and Harry buying a lorry apiece, they have now come to the conclusion that a modern transport system cannot be run in that way.
If companies are to be formed, the people concerned must have some idea which of the assets they can acquire before forming a company. Under the procedure devised, the Commission will form the company in the hope that it will be sufficiently attractive to outsiders, not because they are interested in transport, but so that they may look at the structure of a particular company in order to decide whether it is worth investing their money in it. Will that be of any assistance to transport?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Are not the remarks of the hon. Gentleman very much in conflict with observations made from his own Front Bench by speakers who have pointed out that the Lords Amendment is very much the same in principle as one which was proposed from these benches and with which hon. Gentlemen opposite were in general agreement?

Mr. Pargiter: We may have been in agreement about something which seemed


a more beneficial way of disposing of the assets, but that does not let the Government out. They have had to some here today with this proposal because their other method was doomed to failure.

Mr. Harvey: Mr. Harvey rose—

Mr. Pargiter: I cannot give way again. It is obvious that in the circumstances something has to be done to save the face of the Government. We shall have the Commission forming companies in the hope that the units will be sufficiently attractive for outsiders to invest money in. In order that there shall not be concentration of vehicles in too few hands, I presume that the company formation will take place after everybody has decided what vehicles he wants and how he wants them. The Disposal Board will have to change their minds as they go along, according to how sales are effected and how they are able to attract customers. What that will lead the Commission to do in the way of company formation I do not know.
The obvious thing is to decide in advance that some parts of the assets are to be disposed of in large parcel's and other assets in small parcels. If that is the intention of the Minister, that is all right, but let us have that clear at the beginning. It ought to be clear that there are certain transport units so large that to be run efficiently they will not be generally available to small people or to small companies; they will need people with considerable assets to take them over. If that is the proposal, we ought to get clear about it at the beginning, and the Minister ought to tell us that company formation will be an integral part and not a residual part of the structure. It will be done in the first instance, in order that transport units can be divided up in to reasonably economic lots.
Whether we believe in nationalisation or not, we want an efficient transport system. If we are to have transport units which are large enough to be economic that should be decided at the beginning, and not at the end after somebody has picked out the best so that the Commission will be obliged to make units with what is left over. That would be entirely wrong. The units would not be attractive, and would have to be disposed of at knock-out prices. If we make these units, they must be attractive, and then the

chances are that the Disposal Board will be able to dispose of them at rather attractive figures that will show little loss on the transaction. For the life of me I cannot see why they should not do it in that way.
In view of the fact that these companies have to be disposed of in single lots, how will that be done? Will finance houses, like the United Dominions Trust, come into the picture again? Will they find a means by which they will acquire some of these units which they would not be able to secure by any other means? They could finance people to acquire them. I can readily understand and appreciate the Minister's point of view. He thinks that these are philanthropic people who will finance small men to acquire a small number of vehicles, in the interests of private enterprise.
As one who knows something about these things, I know that finance houses must live and must charge something for their money. They tie the assets up pretty closely so that if anything happens they can get them. In view of the fact that they allow only 18 months' purchase for second-hand cars and the interest is now 14 per cent., approximately 10 per cent. per annum, and if that is to be the rate of interest that the transport people are to pay, these people will have to earn a good deal of money before they can pay their way and pay the interest on the capital.
Let us assume that the units are formed into companies. The United Dominions Trust will be able to set up a group of people, saying: "You form a company and we will find the money." I have an idea that there will be a good deal of concentration in too few hands unless we are very careful how these transport units are disposed of. I feel that we may not be doing this transaction in the best way.
Why must we dispose of the transport units in one parcel? Why cannot shares be offered on the market in the usual way and let people come in an buy them? Let the small investor come in and invest a few pounds if he wants to. Why should he not? If hon. Gentlemen opposite desire a property-owning democracy this might be a very good means by which to start. Form a company and invite people to buy shares, and let us have arrangements by which shareholdings can be taken up and money provided for part


of the company units, and there would not necessarily be concentration in too few hands.
What are these companies to be? Primarily they will be people with a purely financial interest and not an interest in transport. They will hire brains to run the organisation, in the sort of way that such companies do. We ought not to assume that they will be much concerned with transport but only with whether it is profitable to put money into it or not. The argument that I have put forward seems to show that it will not be profitable if we leave a lot of people to get the best parts of the assets and leave the unwanted units to be disposed of at the best price we can get by the formation of companies.
The Bill represents a departure from the original White Paper with its conception of everybody being able to go in and run the transport of this country in small units. The Liberals' point of view is that the small man can do some things best, but the Liberals do not say what he can do best. There is no need to dispose of these assets to assist the small men; they are already there; it is only a question whether they can operate within the 25-mile radius. If the Government were concerned about the small man, they would have chosen a different way of disposing of these national transport units, but they have chosen this way. We shall find not only that the nation will lose but that this company structure method, while it is an improvement upon the original proposal of the Government, will fall very far short of looking after the interests of the country in obtaining an efficient transport system and disposing of national assets to the best advantage.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) with regard to the introduction of this Amendment in another place. The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend had not had the courage to introduce it here. I should like to express my appreciation of the courage of my right hon. Friend, because he did not wholeheartedly accept the Amendment originally moved from this side of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Southall cannot have this both ways. When this matter was originally discussed in principle, his

hon. Friends were very much in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and myself, to such an extent that it almost became an embarrassment.

Mr. Pargiter: Although we are willing to discuss the way to dispose of this transport cake, the hon. Member must not assume that we are willing to dispose of it at all.

Mr. Harvey: That is not the point I am making. The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of cowardice in this matter in allowing the Amendment to be brought in in another place.

Mr. David Jones: Is the hon. Member aware that the Amendment was moved initially in the Committee stage and that by the time the Report stage arrived, the Minister had not had sufficient courage to adopt it?

Mr. Harvey: I am very well aware of the history of the matter, perhaps more so than the hon. Gentleman. I was challenged by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) to show how I stood with regard to the justice of the Amendment that has now appeared. The position is exactly that which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, and I would take the opportunity of associating myself with the views then expressed to the Minister in this matter.

Mr. A. J. Champion: The Minister, when he was introducing today the Lords Amendment containing this new Clause, told us it was a long, complicated and difficult Clause. With that I agree. It is a long, difficult and complicated Clause, and I think I know the reason for that. Here I cannot follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) in his thanks to the Minister. I can join him in thanking the Minister for having accepted the idea, but the objection I have is to the way in which the Minister has framed the Clause and the way in which he proposes to carry out what I said was the good idea of the hon. Member for Harrow, East and the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones).
Certainly it was our intention on this side that any new Clause introduced to deal with this point of the company structure should be a workable one. and


one of some real value both to the Commission and to those employees who will come into the employment of the companies to be formed. The crux of this matter is whether or not this Clause does in its present shape actually meet the point of view of the hon. Member for Harrow, East and his friends and of the Opposition who put down an Amendment to seek what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were seeking.
It seems to me that in the long time between the Committee stage of the Bill here and its consideration in another place the Minister thought, "We must try to give an appearance of meeting my hon. Friends and the Opposition in this matter of the disposal of the road haulage undertaking by the company method. We will put down an Amendment in another place which we will head,' Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares.'" He even thought the new Clause should say:
If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section …
That is all right, but it seems to me the Minister went on to say, "How much of that can we whittle down by means of all sorts of provisos?"
He said, first of all, that regard must be had to Clause 3 (3) which says that companies must not be formed for this purpose until regard had been had to a number of very important considerations. The Commission, for example, must have regard to
… the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale.
That is one of the things they must take into consideration. They must also take into consideration that
… no transport unit shall, without the approval of the Minister, include more than fifty motor vehicles.
They must also have regard to getting the best possible price.
Then the Minister sought to meet, I understand, some points put up to him by his supporters here and in another place by saying in this Lords Amendment that
… the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is

likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward.
8.15 p.m.
There we have it. The Lords Amendment which supposedly gives the Transport Commission the power to set up such companies makes it practically impossible for the Commission to take advantage of their powers. This is really nonsense. It makes nonsense of the idea of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow, East. It makes nonsense of the idea of the hon. Member for Hall Green that there should be created a company structure. Although the Lords Amendment has the appearance of meeting their point, it destroys its reality.
This is the thing to which we take serious objection, and if we have discussed this Lords Amendment, this new Clause, at some length, at least I believe it deserved such discussion. It was right to have that discussion. It was right that we should expose, as we have exposed, by moving Amendments to the Lords Amendment and by considering the Lords Amendment now, the intention of the Minister and the shocking content of this new Clause which he has drafted and presented in this way.
The Minister said—and he has said it again today—and, apparently, he says it with great sincerity, that it weighed very much with him that the company structure brought greater security into the lives of the workers. What does he mean by this? He surely means that if we are going to form a company there is a reasonable chance that the men working for the company will have continuity of employment in the conditions of service produced when the company comes into being. When this point was raised before, the Minister replied:
Lord Hurcomb and others repeatedly said that the best interests of the workpeople in the Commission's undertaking might be helped in some way by the company structure because they would feel part of a living organism which would pass smoothly into other hands.
Delightful; excellent. The Minister accepted the point, but he has destroyed the whole value of that point as he is also destroying the whole value of the idea of the new Clause by whittling it down. A little later he said:
The duty of the Commission is to get rid of the Road Haulage Executive properties. If they find difficulty in getting rid of them in


the particular shareholding groups in which they have been established various machineries I have outlined are open to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 1344–6.]
He went on that such vehicles as were not disposed of could be disposed of as chattels. That means, of course, that the men who are going to work on those vehicles will feel no continuity of employment if those vehicles can be disposed of as chattels.
It is all right for hon. Gentlemen sitting on those benches to regard men who were employed on this undertaking as chattels, something to be disposed of. I do not usually speak in this way in this House, but I cannot help being bitter about this. The people sitting on the benches opposite do not know the hell of uncertainty that comes to employees, and it is that very hell of uncertainty that we create as a result of the Bill and of this Lords Amendment, the Minister's remarks upon which today the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow, East commended to the House.
Let us have regard to the employees as well as to the users of the undertakings. I believe that if that had been done we should never have been presented with a new Clause such as this, but would have been presented with a Clause which would have met the intention of hon. Members opposite and given it some reality in legislative provision and would have given some security to those who are employed in these groups which might be made into companies as a result of the Clause.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: Hon. Members opposite have professed to accept the new Clause as something which carries out their intentions when they suggested the Company structure, but I should like to point out that the basic principle of the proposals which they advanced was that the Commission should have a financial interest in the new companies. The fact that the Government and the Minister—and I blame the Government in the main—have failed to carry into effect a provision whereby the Transport Commission would have a financial interest in these companies and would keep them in being, making sure that they were properly run, undermines the whole basis of the Opposition's support of the original idea.

Mr. Ian Harvey: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? That was only one aspect of the argument, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) made it perfectly clear, in what I thought was a very reasonable speech, why we accepted the Government's arguments in this case.

Mr. Proctor: I understand that it was only one aspect, but to us it was a vital aspect. Having failed to convince the Government and having had what was virtually a slap in the face, hon. Members opposite have turned round and thanked the Government for what they have done. The back bench Members opposite adopt a very subservient attitude. Talk about turning the other cheek. They thank the Government for having undermined the whole purpose of what was a useful suggestion and they say, "We have been convinced of the lack of wisdom of our proposals," when we know that in fact they have not been convinced of it at all.
The original purpose, from our point of view, was that the proposals would have afforded the Government and the nation an opportunity to keep in being the wonderful services which have been built up at such expense and run so efficiently and so safely, by comparison with the position which will exist under private enterprise if we introduce many of the things which we thought had been banned from our roads for ever. These incomparable services would have been of great value to us if we had created them before the war and had been able to use them during the war. They are much more efficient services than the temporary service which had to be created when the nation faced the emergency.
The next purpose, which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has stressed with such power, was that of retaining the jobs of the loyal workers who have worked to build up these services and to work them effectively and efficiently throughout the country. That was our second purpose.
Next was an attempt to lose less money for the State in implementing the Bill. The Government forced their decision to de-nationalise transport through the House and we thought that here was an


opportunity to see that the State lost less money than they would lose if the original intention were carried out and than they will lose under the present arrangements. This proposal has been twisted in quite another direction. It is now to be used to make more money for the people in the City. This is a more effective way of handing out the financial benefits to the City than would otherwise have been the case.
The Transport Commission now have to set up these companies on an efficient basis and to hand them over in one parcel of shares. Only the big men can buy in a single parcel. They are not bound to be handed over to anyone else in a single parcel. The big financial trusts and corporations, which have been set up and have been given such unwarranted facilities by the Treasury to make these financial arrangements, will make a packet of money out of this. Far from serving the purpose which we thought it would serve when we supported the idea, the new Clause will now redound to the benefit of the financiers and not of the nation.
Something has been said about the Minister's courage in these matters. I am one of those who say that he has very great courage. Anyone who takes on his job in these circumstances must have very great courage. We know that the job was being hawked around in the Tory Party and that it was only a man of courage who would undertake the distasteful job of dismantling the great services we have in this country.
The House is faced with an extraordinary situation. The Prime Minister makes the decisions and issues the directions—I was going to say to his colleagues, but I will say to his Ministers. Then he goes away and we have to argue with Ministers in the House of Commons, but they have no power. If the Prime Minister intends to set the people of this country free, the first people he should set free are his own Cabinet so that they can have some authority to come to the House and argue with us. Consider the extraordinary position we had last week. The Leader of the House had to confess that he had not even the authority to give us an extra day to discuss these matters. We had to await the Prime Minister's return from a dinner before

the necessary authority could be obtained from him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not in the Amendment.

Mr. Proctor: I should like to return to the narrow point of the Amendment a little later, like the Prime Minister returned the other evening, although perhaps not as full of the spirit of combat as he was. The situation is extraordinary. The Prime Minister knows little about transport. The other day, when he condescended to talk to us about it, he said we had paid too much for the railways by paying £300 million. He did not even know that we paid £1,100 million, not £300 million. The extraordinary fact is that we have someone controlling the affairs of the nation in this manner, and one of the reasons why we spend so much time before a decision is reached on the Clause is that the Minister of Transport has to persuade the Prime Minister to change his mind before he can announce to the House that he has accepted the sensible concessions which we have convinced him are absolutely necessary. Taking this new Clause to the House of Lords gave the Minister a further opportunity of urging the Prime Minister to do the sensible thing.
8.30 p.m.
I say that here was a great opportunity. The Opposition, recognising that the Government had forced this Bill through the House of Commons, were hoping to see if they could not save the whole situation by means of the company structure suggestion. I say that if we had disposed of the whole of the road transport of the Commission on the basis of the company structure, and had allowed the Commission to retain a financial interest in it and had kept in being all this splendid organisation, we might have avoided, first of all, the financial loss, and, secondly, the loss of jobs so far as the employees are concerned, and we might not have split the nation in the stupid fashion which the Government are doing at the present time.
Let me warn the Government of this. Danger will arise when it comes to the day when men's jobs are being done away with and this great service is being broken up. The people working in it at the


present time and who see its efficiency and helped to create it cannot believe that the Government are going on with the work of wrecking it. What a difference it would have been if the Minister had been able to say, "We accept this compromise. We will do the best we can for these new companies. We will keep this great service which has been created in existence."
Then we could have turned to the foreign policy field and the other great matters which confront the nation. The spirit displayed in this House on the question of this Bill this week shows that the Government have no concern for the real interests of the nation. They should do only one thing more, and that is go to the country at once. I am ready to challenge the Government to go to the country on this great issue of transport and on the other issues which confront us, because I believe that the people of this country realise that only by getting a Labour administration and adopting a sensible economic arrangement which Labour stands for is there any hope for the future of the country.

Mr. Percy Morris: In view of the fact that this is our last opportunity to express our opposition to this Clause and to the principles of the Bill, I think it is desirable that we should repeat briefly our objections to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) directed attention to our fundamental objection, namely, that a great service like the transport service, which is as essential to the well-being of the community as water, electricity and gas, has been taken out of public ownership and returned to the field of speculative enterprise. We feel more strongly than ever that to make transport the subject of rent, interest and profit is to render the country a great dis-service.
If one were to engage in a retrospective study of transport, one would have to acknowledge that immediately the country is in a state of emergency its transport is nationalised, and that will happen again in the future if we are unfortunate enough to have another war. We submit, and there is evidence in our favour, that if it was essential to have transport nationalised during the war, it is equally

essential that we should have it at the country's disposal during the economic war. This Bill, in fact, is dislocating transport and creating, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. J. Champion) said, a great deal of uncertainty.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but his speech so far has been a Second Reading speech and has had nothing to do with the Amendments to this Bill.

Mr. Morris: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but you will recognise that in this fleeting moment we want to repeat as widely as we can, subject to your Ruling, our fundamental objections to this Bill.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East rendered the House a service when he tried to remove the complacency in the House this afternoon as a result of something which the Minister of Transport said. Listening to the Minister's observations, one would have concluded that all was well so far as the staff are concerned. He pointed out that there were such things as compensation regulations, and he referred to the fact that he would be discussing these matters with the authorities concerned; and that if a man were removed from the service of the Commission and placed in private employment he would then come under the supervision and direction of the wages council.
But that is only half the story. The right hon. Gentleman must be reminded that there are at least 15,000 to 20,000 employees of the Road Haulage Executive for whom there is no such thing as a wages council, and it is only when they come under the supervision of the B.T.C. that we can help them at all. Judging by the figures in respect of their salaries and classification of posts, the B.T.C. has proved to be their salvation. But now, under this uncertainty, they will go back to private employment. What will the Minister do to ensure that these men have the decent conditions of service which they have had during the past few years? I imagine he will do nothing at all unless he has changed his mind since we last discussed it.
The Liberal Party is divided in its support. They say that they would like to


support the one-man unit in view of the special services which it can render. How will the one-man unit compete with the great companies and give its solitary employee a decent salary, decent hours and other conditions?

Mr. Arthur Holt: The Liberal Party have never said that. We want to see one-man, two-men or three-men units given a proper chance in the sphere in which we think the small unit can do best, but in the other spheres it may be that the larger company, which will be floated by shares, will provide the best service to the community. We want the right type of structure in the right place.

Mr. Morris: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the only sphere in which the one-man unit can function successfully is that of the 25-mile limit? We must not leave out the human aspect. I do not propose to detain the House on this, especially if I can get the Minister to reply. What steps will the Minister take to safeguard the interest of clerical and administrative workers who were paid a mere pittance before the B.T.C. took them over? Now that they are being handed back to private enterprise, what encouragement will he give them to render equally efficient service in the future?
I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman has ever been faced with such a situation, and I hope he never will be, but it is a terrible thing for a man who has spent a lifetime in one sphere, such as transport, and qualified by virtue of experience and training, suddenly to find himself hurled on the market without any prospects of decent employment. Where will such a man turn? He will have no special qualification for employment in any other industry. Such men will be left high and dry, and they will have to thank a Tory Government for that.
I urge the Government to respond to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East and remove the uncertainty. If these public assets are to be handed over to speculators and private enterprise, I beg the Government to ask for a quid pro quo on behalf of the men whose votes they will be seeking at the next General Election. I urge the Government to treat these men decently and honourably and

let them feel that in the great speculative field of transport the Government have not forgotten their prior claims.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Being a simple sort of person, every time I look at the Bill and this Clause I become more and more mystified. Many changes were made to the Bill before it got its Third Reading here, and further changes were made in another place, producing this Clause, which mystifies me as much as did some of the actions of the Government in the earlier stages of the Bill.
Clause 3, which deals with the sale of transport units, lays down that the Commission shall get, in the aggregate, the best possible price. It is difficult to know exactly what that means in the minds of a Tory Government. The Clause which we are now considering says that the price shall be equal to the net value of the property as shown in the books of the Commission. We are entitled to know which of these definitions of the price at which transport units shall be sold is the correct one and how it is to be applied.
It is wrong for hon. Members opposite to assume that there is no concern in the minds of road transport workers about the damage the Bill and the Clause will do to their working interests. I have heard it suggested that great care is being taken to protect the security of the lorry drivers and those who are going to be thrown on to the scrap heap. Although I am a member of the union which organises most of the transport workers, I have never heard one worker praise this Bill, but I have heard them say that this Bill will remove from their lives and the lives of their families that sense of security and well being which they have had under the Transport Commission.
The real feeling among the transport workers is that they are being sold down the street in the interests of high finance, and it would be quite wrong to imagine that they have anything to say in favour of this Bill. The fact is that for tens of thousands of them they have had, for the first time in their lives, a sense of security, a high standard of wages and good working conditions under the Commission, but what is equally as important, they have had a well cared for lorry to drive such as they never had before.
In the past, road transport workers have been the victims of cut-throat competition on the roads, particularly at


night. Under nationalisation they were building up a first-class service, and there was a feeling of confidence in the men who drove these lorries. To break this service up in the way proposed in the Bill is going to make the lives of the workers more difficult, and the fears they have, even if we adopt this company structure for the sale of some of the transport lorries, is that their lives will be very much more insecure than they have been during the last two or three years. They fear that they will return to the old mad, cut-throat competition of pre-war days.
Anyone who knows anything about the conditions on the roads in pre-war days knows that the men got a very tough deal in every possible way. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to think that among the workers in the industry there is any support for this Bill. They want to keep the present method of organisation in their industry, which they think should be organised as a public service for the good of the nation as a whole, rather than as a service the primary aim of which will be providing profits for private individuals.
I notice that the Clause we are discussing provides that in determining whether tenders or offers for the shares shall be accepted or refused, there must be taken into account whether such acceptance or refusal will lead to the elimination of competition in the carriage of goods by road. Then in the next line we have the suggestion that that must not be the whole or main reason why the offers or tenders are refused, but that such a step should not be taken
without the consent of the Minister.
I wondered why that was put in, and I have come to the conclusion that it is because there are big financial interests, some of which have been discussed in this House during the last few days, who have the intention of getting hold of a large number of these lorries so as to organise them—as any sane person versed in the economics of transport would want to organise them—in a big way, because that will bring economy in the use of the lorries, efficiency in providing the service, and much greater profits than if they were organised in the old haphazard way of one or two lorries, a scheme in which the Liberal Party believe and which is

something similar to what we knew before the war.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Holt: As I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman, if the industry remained nationalised all the people at present employed on road haulage would continue in employment whereas, if it went back to some loose private enterprise system, as he visualised the Liberal suggestion, a lot of people would be thrown out of work because they were surplus. Surely, therefore, his argument is that there are far too many people at present employed in the road haulage industry?

Mr. Gibson: I think it is true that in many parts of the country there was an enormous wastage of transport facilities when the industry was organised in groups of one or two lorries and that there were many occasions when the lorries returned empty. That is not economic and there is no doubt that the efficient use of lorries and the provision of loads on the return as well as on the outward journey is important in effecting economy and in making the industry profitable. I should have thought that experience all over the world would have proved that a transport service must be organised on national lines if it is to be of that value to the community which everybody says it should be.
Therefore it would be better to scrap this Bill and let the British Transport Commission carry on with the work of organising the services which this country needs if it is successfully to get through the next few hard economic years. The Government, however, have determined to do otherwise and have introduced this Clause into the Bill to meet some of the criticisms which have been made but also. I suspect, to meet some of the demands of people in the finance world who would like to milk this industry.
I have come to the conclusion that this is a rustlers' Bill. In America rustlers used to be shot for stealing horses, but here we have the Government deliberately arranging for the legal rustling of the best part of our transport industry. What is more, they are apparently lending support to the big boys in the industry, who will be given a legalised status to do their rustling on a big scale. I think that is wrong, the men in the transport industry


think it is wrong, and I believe the country will think it is wrong as soon as they realise what tricks the Government are up to in this Bill.
I hope that the day will not be far off when we shall be able to test in the country whether the Government policy on this matter, as well as on other matters, has the support of all the people. I do not believe it has. I am sure it had not at the last Election when the Labour Party secured more votes than the Conservative Party, although the Conservative Party became the Government because of the way in which our political system works. But if it is a question of votes, if it is a question of public support for the policies we advocate, then there is no doubt that those who vote in this country voted in a majority for the maintenance of the present system of nationalised transport.

Mr. Ian Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is the speech of the hon. Gentleman in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not in order. It is a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I hope the Minister will acquit me of any discourtesy in that I was not here to hear him moving this Clause. Unfortunately, I had to be in another part of the building at the time. I do not propose to make the speech I intended originally, because of the limitations of the flesh, but there are one or two points I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
I heard a good deal of the debate on this Clause during the discussion of the various Amendments, and having devoted more time to this Lords Amendment than I have devoted to any other piece of Parliamentary legislation in the 15 years that I have been in the House, I confess that at the end I am more confused than I was at the beginning. I do not see how the new Clause can be read into the Bill as it went to another place. If the Minister, when he replies, can help to clear up the complete contradictions which it contains, I shall be grateful. I do not think he can clear up the point, which has been so often stressed, about the little man being given his place to tender for the units. I should, however, like the Minister to clear up this point for me. Are

these units to have a maximum size of 50 vehicles?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Poole: The Minister, I understand, is saying, "No."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That was dealt with very clearly by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, and it answers at the same time the question raised by another hon. Member. It does not apply.

Mr. Poole: I heard the Economic Secretary say that, and I noticed him shake his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) asked the question again today. Will the Minister say under what Clause other than Clause 5 he has permission to make these units of a size larger than 50 vehicles?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The limitation only applies, and this is the only part of the Bill which applies, to transport units of 50 vehicles and 200 tons unladen weight. As the limitation applies only to units, there is no need to exclude the companies from something which does not apply to them.

Mr. Poole: My hon. Friends and I have tried, but have failed, to find just how the Minister will overcome all this. However, it is the Minister's worry. He has taken the final power, it is he alone who can give directions to the Board, and it is he alone who exercises the final jurisdiction as to whether a tender is accepted. Therefore, it is not for me to take upon my shoulders the right hon. Gentleman's worries.
I should, however, like to ask the Minister a question regarding the companies which are established and their ultimate destination, and I hope he will be perfectly frank. What protection is offered in the new Clause or anywhere in the Bill to ensure that these new companies which remain in the form in which the Commission sell them—that is, in one parcel—shall not be subsequently bought up by large combines and trusts, and that we do not have amalgamations and trustification in the industry, and monopoly practices creeping in?
I see not safeguard for the position which will arise when the Commission form the company with up to 50 vehicles—or perhaps more, as we are now


told, and possibly as many as 100—with all the garages and equipment that go with them. The Commission can market the shares in one parcel, but in many cases the little man has limited resources.
What is to protect the little man who rakes up the capital to buy up these units of 50 or more vehicles and all that goes with them, if within a month a dozen other companies similarly formed are bought up by some financial trust or combine, or an amalgamation takes place? The little man may have placed himself in financial bondage for the rest of his life to get hold of a unit of 50 vehicles, only to find that he was competing with an amalgamation of other companies with 1,000 vehicles and all the resources which are at their disposal.
At this late stage, I ask the Minister to give an assurance. If he is interested in safeguarding the small man, for whom he has made special provision in the Clause and who is to have an opportunity of coming in, how is that small man to be protected from trustification and monopoly practices? If the Minister answers this question to the satisfaction of the House we shall know that he and his party are interested in the small road haulier, but if he refuses to answer we can only draw our own conclusion that all that has been said about the rights of the little man in this industry has no meaning at all but is just froth and bubble.
This is a most serious matter. If the Minister were interested in achieving competition in this industry, I could have done so for him in a two-Clause Bill much more satisfactorily than this Bill which requires a four and a half page Lords Amendment even to put in this provision. I would have taken the present A licence vehicles and removed the 25-mile restriction. Then we would have had the units sought under this Clause already operating and had twice the number of vehicles competing with the B.T.C.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure my hon. Friend will remember that that in effect is what the Conservative Party proposed in their Election manifesto. He will agree that this Bill has no relation to what they put to the country.

Mr. Poole: That, of course, is what we all know. Not only is it what they put

in their manifesto, but an even sadder point is that the man who lost his business by nationalisation will be the last man who can get an A licence to come back into the industry. If the Conservative Party only wanted competition in the industry, they could have liberalised the A licence holder and flooded the roads of the country with twice as many vehicles as the B.T.C. to provide competition without a four and a half page Lords Amendment but with a couple of Clauses in a simple Bill.
It has not been for the purpose of competition nor for helping the little man that this has been done, but to destroy nationalisation—to destroy it effectively and completely. I am sorry, because what is being destroyed today is not merely some idea that we of the Socialist Party enjoy; it was the only hope there was of an intelligent, integrated transport system in this country. The integration of the transport industry was a view shared out of the depth of experience by the noble Lord the Minister for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power. I do not know why he does not hang his head in shame when he reads some of the things he said—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This appears to be a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Poole: I do not know whether in a Second Reading speech I should be allowed to refer to the noble Lord, but I am referring to the new Clause which has the blessing of the noble Lord. In relation to this Clause he would be well advised to read some of the things he said about integration and co-ordination of transport and how integration of small units was desirable in days gone by. His capacity for eating the words of his own speeches must have grown enormously as the years have gone by.
That is all I want to say on this new Clause; I do not understand it. I am sure the Minister does not understand it. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, by his replies, has proved conclusively that he does not understand it, and the hon. Member opposite who thought the Clause was an answer to his prayer on the Committee stage obviously does not understand it. It will not work, and therein lies our only hope of salvation.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: It is a scandal that we are not having an opportunity to discuss more of the Lords Amendments, but I think it fortunate that, even within the limited time at our disposal, we are having an opportunity to say something more about this Clause. As other hon. Members have pointed out, this Lords Amendment is almost a new Bill in itself, and it is ridiculous that we should be asked to accept or reject it like this without having had an opportunity of discussing it in detail. Except for the Amendments that we were able to bring forward from this side of the House, we have not been able to give it a proper Committee stage, as we ought to have been able to do. That is one of our main complaints against it.
While I join my protest with that of others about the whole procedure on this Bill, I would point out to my hon. Friends that we must not be too despondent about it because the method under which we are now working may be very useful to us when, after the next Election, we introduce our re-nationalisation Bill; if the other place send us some hundreds of Amendments to it we shall, under this new procedure, be able to vote them all down in one vote, and get rid of them very quickly.
The main part of this Lords Amendment to which I object is subsection (4), in which it is stated:
In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition. …
We know why that form of words has been introduced. It reflects the clear difference in political thought between the other side of the House and this. They believe, at least they say in their propaganda they believe, in competition; we frankly do not believe that cut-throat competition is the best way of getting the best service at the lowest possible price. Although the party opposite say they believe in competition they do not really do so; their whole history proves that.
If we take just this one industry of transport, its whole history has been one long series of amalgamations of all these small concerns into bigger concerns, and

of examples of concerns, where they have not completely merged, having come to working arrangements between themselves to avoid competition. It is sheer hypocrisy for the party opposite to say that they believe in competition when in practice they do not. Let the House consider the difficulty which anybody had who was not already established in the road transport industry in trying to get into it. He had to present his case before a tribunal, where he was opposed by legal gentlemen representing those people who were already in on the ground floor. He was very fortunate indeed if he was able to get in.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) expressed the concern of the Liberal Party for the one-man, two-man, or three-man business. We can well understand his concern for these very small businesses because he is the only Member of the Liberal Party present, if I may for the moment except the Chair, and the Liberal Party is one of these small concerns. Accordingly we can understand his theoretical concern for them. But even the hon. Member must admit, if he has followed the history of the transport industry, that what I have said is correct about the gradual and progressive elimination of competition all the way through.
Indeed, at the beginning of the war, when the transport industry had gone to a great deal of trouble to produce a report because of the difficulties in which it found itself, its suggestion for the future was not competition; it wanted a private monopoly. So why do we have, in this Lords Amendment, this idea of insisting on competition? What does this insistence mean? Does it mean, as it would appear to mean, that the Minister is to insist that there shall be more than one operator in any particular district, whatever the needs of that district may be?
It may well be, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton, West, that in a particular area there is need for only one small transport concern. But that is not good enough for the Minister. He says in this subsection that we must have competition, that there must be more than one concern. That does not make sense. It is not conducive to efficiency in the industry, which is what we must assume the Minister is attempting to achieve. Supposing he obtains this system and all these small concerns are competing with


each other. What safeguard is there that, after the sales have taken place, these small concerns will not amalgamate—as they always have done in the transport industry in the past—so that we shall have one concern, with none of the competition required by this subsection?
I see no safeguard against that at all, and I do not believe the Minister has prepared any. If he has, I hope he will tell me, because it means that I am under an entire misapprehension about the meaning of this Clause. I can well understand the theoretical concern, the political concern, of hon. Members opposite over competition in industry generally as we understand the term. But I would support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr P. Morris), that this is more than an industry; it is a public service.
We do not attempt to have several gas companies or electricity or water companies in one town, and neither should we attempt to have several competing transport services in a particular district. It is a mistake, and I believe that if the Minister could view the road transport industry as a public service rather than as something from which his friends can make a profit, he would have different ideas about how to achieve the kind of efficiency which everyone desires.
By insisting on this degree of competition in which they do not believe, but which is done to impress their political followers, hon. Members opposite are showing no real concern for the public welfare. For that and for many other reasons I consider this whole Bill is dishonest. Take, for example, their concern about nationalisation. I can understand hon. Members opposite saying they do not believe in nationalisation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to stray from the Amendment.

Mr. Hynd: This Clause is fairly wide. I was about to point out that under this Clause hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to say that they will denationalise road transport. But if they are so much against nationalisation, why do not they denationalise the railways? They do not wish to do that, because there would be no profit in it. Tonight we on this side of the House are helpless. Hon Gentlemen opposite have the majority, and I

have no doubt that this Clause will be voted through and added to the Bill. The only question which remains is whether the next Election will come in time for us to rescue this industry from complete chaos.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that he regarded this as a "rustler's Clause," because under the business ethics of the Wild West, once one had succeeded in shooting one's way into the town and got away with the swag one was all right. That was regarded as a conventional business practice and, presumably, formed some part of the capitalist system of those days. I remind my hon. Friend that the Wild West films that I used to see always ended up with virtue triumphant and vice defeated, and I have no doubt that that will be the end of this Bill, too. I would also remind him that the rustlers always got shot, and that this Government are going to get shot for what they are doing in this particular Bill. [Interruption.] Well, I would cheerfully put a ringer to the trigger and shoot the whole lot of them when I consider what they are proposing to do to the road haulage industry in this Bill.
I wish to refer to the origins of this Clause. You have complained, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in some ways we were going rather wide in the comments we were making, but I would say, with respect, that this Clause, which runs to some four and a half pages and has about 13 subsections, in fact touches on the whole fabric of the Bill and the method of disposal of these units, and that is one reason why we have gone rather wide. I should like to go back to the discussion we had at the beginning of the day.
Away back in December, many dreary months ago, when we were all comparatively fresh on this Bill, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) moved and seconded an Amendment which provided for the company structure. I have been extremely surprised tonight to learn that both these hon. Members are apparently satisfied with what the Government are doing. I must say that they are easily satisfied, and I should like to take the opportunity of reminding them of what their attitude was on this matter when


they originally moved to include this proposal in the Bill.
If I may so remind the hon. Member for Harrow, East, what was said then by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause bears very little relationship to what now appears in the Bill, and, in order to be better armed, I have brought the particular references to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman. The mover, the hon. Member for Hall Green, said—and I am not going to read it all—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman can read both the comments, and, in this case, any quotation he likes.

Mr. Callaghan: I will come back to that point at a more convenient moment in this discussion. What the hon. Member for Hall Green said was this:
We could, in the first place, proceed by detaching certain blocks of property from the undertaking of the R.H.E. and selling them merely as blocks of property, merely as physical assets. The other way would be to break down the undertaking into units capable commercially of subsisting on their own; in other words, to break the undertaking down into business units, as distinct from physical assets which the purchaser has to reshape into business units.
Then, a little later, the hon. Gentleman said this:
The purpose of the Amendment is … to lay it down as a matter of priority that sale should be primarily by way of business units and only secondarily by way of mere blocks of physical assets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 245–6.]
There are several other things that could be said here, but I do not wish to read the whole speech. I think that that quotation is sufficient to indicate what was certainly in my mind when I heard the hon. Gentleman speak this evening. On 9th December, he had clearly in mind that the main method of disposal which he wanted was the selling of business units rather than mere blocks of property, and, as I understand his speech in HANSARD of that day, it was devoted to an Amendment for the formation of company units rather than the sale of transport units in groups of a handful or so. I gather that he is satisfied with what the Minister is now doing, so I take it that he has changed his mind on that.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Mr. Aubrey Jones indicated dissent.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: If he is not, then in that case I suggest he was rather too fulsome to the Minister for not doing what he asked him to do when he moved the Amendment in the first place. I notice also his view that it is impossible to have a mixture of public and private ownership. Apparently he was originally attracted to that idea, but now believes it to be impossible.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Not impossible, but open to very grave objection.

Mr. Callaghan: No doubt, when we come to re-nationalise this property, as we shall in due course, the hon. Gentleman will not attempt to have this Clause inserted. I would certainly like to see an election at a very early date. If there is to be an election in the autumn, no one would welcome it as much as I would, and nobody would get a greater shock than hon. Members opposite. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will be able to resume his holiday in Italy and stay as long as he likes. He will not be troubled when he is on this side of the House. He can even go to Spain to see General Franco again, where I have no doubt he will be very welcome.
I now come to the next point. [Interruption] The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has only been in the Chamber for about the last 30 minutes and does not know what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and did not hear the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I did not say a word.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It must have been an unknown and anonymous hon. Gentleman opposite who interjected and who also, in all probability, was not present either.
The Minister ought to congratulate himself on the effect of the Guillotine. Never have I seen it so quickly capable of destroying real combat and clash of opinion in the House of Commons. It has been quite remarkable today to see the way in which the Minister has been able to sit back waiting for the Guillotine to operate without bothering to answer what was said to him in any way at all.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No, not at the moment. The Minister made an offensive personal remark to me just now and I do not intend to give way to him to enable him to do so again.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is not my intention.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, I will give way.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I was going to say was that I had already spoken for half an hour, a fact to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, and that if he likes to stop before 10.30 I will repeat the performance.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat his argument, even if he repeats the performance. Some of my hon. Friends have asked some very pertinent questions to which they have received no reply. The Minister might have dealt with them in his first speech had he been concerned with the subject, because they should have been in the front of his mind.
I now come to the credit facilities and hire purchase, and wish to make reference to the position of the United Dominions Trust, as did the Minister during his speech. There has been a most remarkable change in the Government's attitude on the provision of credit facilities. In the House of Lords on 26th March, the spokesman for the Government, the Earl of Selkirk, said:
What the Treasury have done is this. They have informed the banks that they consider this—that is, the action under this Bill—a suitable subject for credit in the national interest. This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 26th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 328.]
That was the first intimation we received that there were to be some exceptional facilities for the purchase of these road haulage units.
I then put a Question down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for 16th April, and it was answered by the Economic Secretary. I asked him:
… if he will reverse his advice to the banks that loans to finance houses and other private persons for the purpose of buying lorries from the Road Haulage Executive may be given the same priority as loans for export, defence.

agriculture and Commonwealth development, in view of the present restrictions on borrowing.
The Economic Secretary replied:
No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 352.]
which I took to mean: "We will not reverse the advice which has been given." He was in line with the Government spokesman in the House of Lords, who said:
This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 328.]
He justified why he did not feel that it was right to change the Government's credit policy. I then put down a Question to the Prime Minister, which was transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking:
What considerations of national interest have led the Government to advise the banks that loans advanced by them for the purchase of lorries from the Road Haulage Executive are to be regarded as having the same priority as loans to encourage exports to dollar countries.
At this stage some doubt seems to have crept in. I suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw it for the first time. He replied in person:
The Government have not advised the banks to give the same priority to loans for the purchase of these lorries as to loans for the export trade. They have advised the banks that it would be consistent with Government policy that loans for such purchases should be made in suitable cases. It is. of course, in the national interest that road transport, by being returned to private enterprise, should be able to give increased help to industry in general whether at home or in efforts to increase exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th April. 1953; Vol. 514, c. 642.]
This is inconsistent, if we take the three replies together. First of all the Government spokesman in the House of Lords says: "This is going to get the same sort of priority as dollar exports get." Then the Economic Secretary says: "I do not intend to reverse that as a statement of policy." Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "We have not advised the banks to do anything of the sort." What a lot of muddle and confusion the Government have got themselves into over this question of credit facilities.
As I understand the position now, it is that the Government are advising the banks that they may give credit to financial houses—I take it that that includes


the United Dominions Trust—in order that they should be able to finance the purchase of lorries. I still do not know why, when those questions were being put to the Government no reference was made in the answers to the fact that United Dominions Trust were to be used as an instrument of Government policy in this connection. It is quite clear that it is. Mr. Gibson Jarvie has said that it is with the Minister's—what is it? [An HON. MEMBER: "Full knowledge and approval."]—full knowledge and approval that it is being done.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not only Mr. Gibson Jarvie who says that. It is the Minister of Transport as well.

Mr. Callaghan: We all know that the Minister said that when it was dragged out of him. We wish he had said it very much earlier, when a great deal of unpleasantness might have been avoided. It might be worth while asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he knew about these arrangements that the Minister of Transport had made with the United Dominions Trust. If he knew of them, and neither the Economic Secretary nor himself referred to it in the answers they gave to the questions, this must be another illustration of the fact that the Government have been putting themselves into a position where they seem to be reluctant to expose the arrangements they are making for the purchase of these lorries.
Now we see the effect of what we have been saying on the Minister of Transport. This afternoon he told us of yet another step which is to be taken; hire purchase credit facilities are to be relaxed in the case of the purchase of these lorries. We can therefore sum up the position by saying that the Government intend that these nationalised lorries shall be sold at a loss. Even though they are to be sold at a loss, they are still not sure they can sell them. Therefore, they are giving the United Dominions Trust credit facilities for borrowing money. [Interruption.] But it is only the United Dominions Trust that has received the Minister's approval in this matter.

Mr. Maudling: An inquiry came to us from the United Dominions Trust as to whether the formation of a company for

this purpose would be within the Government's existing credit policy. We answered, as we should answer an inquiry of that kind from any quarter: Yes, it is; but it must be perfectly clearly understood that this applies to every company or individual who inquires.

Mr. Callaghan: That is, of course, a very different matter from having the Chancellor's full authority and approval. Is the House to take it that the Chancellor gives the same blessing to the United Dominions Trust in this connection that the Minister avers he has given?

Mr. Maudling: If the Chancellor is asked whether a certain thing is within his policy he naturally gives an answer.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not the point. The question I am asking is whether the Chancellor has given his approval to the United Dominions Trust as an instrument of Government policy for receiving credit facilities in this matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect to the Minister, I think the Economic Secretary is quite capable of looking after this, and quite capable of answering for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. He is, after all, the representative of the Chancellor. This does seem to me to be a point on which we may have some enlightenment.

Mr. Maudling: I have clearly given the attitude of the Chancellor in this matter, and he has already stated it himself. The Minister has made even more clear the attitude of the Government, which is one of approval.

Mr. Callaghan: I am still not clear from that whether the Economic Secretary associates the Chancellor with the words of the Minister in this connection.

Mr. Maudling: They are both part of the Government.

Mr. Callaghan: I see. I can only assume from the hesitation of the Economic Secretary that he is much more lukewarm in his approval than is the Minister of Transport, and I am not surprised, because the Chancellor probably has some regard to the facts of this particular situation and to the inroads that will be made on the credit facilities in this connection.
We learn today that not only is the Minister enabling credit facilities from the banks for this purpose in order to enable the small man to purchase lorries, but the Government are actually ready to amend the Hire Purchase Order in order to give the United Dominions Trust a better opportunity of lending more money than they borrowed from the banks. Why make an exception in the case of the United Dominions Trust? That is, with the blessing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has tightened up on credit policy.
I think the House and the country will be interested to know, what is there in this Bill and in the breaking up of the Road Haulage Executive which justifies all these special exemptions, which do not apply to normal business undertakings, being applied now to the United Dominions Trust and to those who want to borrow money from it? What justification is there for this particular exemption from the general operation of the Hire Purchase Order, which has been made applicable to every article that is sold subject to price control in any way?
The Government are now to make a special exemption, apparently, for this purpose. I am not surprised to hear it because it is quite clear from all the special financial exemptions that they are now having to undertake that they are desperately anxious, no matter what the cost, no matter what exemptions they may have to make to general financial and economic policy, to get these lorries sold. That is the only justification that can be given for taking this series of steps which together put the United Dominions Trust in a privileged position over and above the general body of traders and finance organisations in this country.
It is quite clear that exemption is not to be made in respect of other commodities. Or is the President of the Board of Trade, when he introduces his relaxing Order, also going to relax it for other things besides the purchase of lorries. I am not talking about second-hand vehicles. I am talking about the assets of the Road Haulage Executive, some of which are new and some second-hand. It cannot be argued that this is not an exemption, unless the President of the Board of Trade proposes to loosen the hire purchase arrangements which at the

moment impose great restrictions on ordinary citizens buying ordinary goods.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister observed that I could read the whole of the quotation about the United Dominions Trust if I wished to do so, and I observe that there is on the Order Paper a Motion—

[That this House deplores the conduct of the honourable Member for Cardiff, South-East, during the course of debate on 22nd April, 1953 (HANSARD, Column 1215), in quoting words from a pamphlet and representing that they expressed the views of Mr. Gibson Jarvie, whereas the immediate context of the quoted passage showed clearly that Mr. Gibson Jarvie was, in fact, reprobating such views; regrets that the honourable Member has failed to withdraw his imputation, although invited to do so; and considers that his conduct constitutes an abuse of Parliamentary privilege and is contrary to the accepted traditions of fair and responsible debate in this House.]

—in the name of the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary—

Mr. Partridge: And others.

Mr. Callaghan: The Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary signed it in the first place. No doubt the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) is a standard bearer for him. The hon. Member never makes a speech except from a sedentary position. I do not suppose he is capable of doing so.

Mr. Partridge: Mr. Partridge rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot forebear to give way in face of that.

Mr. Partridge: I am quite capable of making a speech in this regard but it will be very short, sharp and to the point. My thoughts about the hon. Gentleman would never alter, but I might have to— [Interruption.] For the moment I will keep my words silent, but I shall still think.

Mr. Callaghan: I think my hon. Friends should have kept silent in face of a maiden speech of that character. I have great pleasure in congratulating the hon. Member upon it and I hope we shall hear many more. The whole House will listen to him with the same attention and


regard which we have given to his maiden speech.
We have not heard from the Attorney-General since he was submerged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) last week. We have now a Motion which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). As I said to the Minister earlier today, if he will prevail on the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate on the Motion, nothing would please me more. We should recover the extra day which we have lost through the operation of the Guillotine.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: Would the hon. Gentleman not say that before putting down the Motion I gave him an opportunity for a personal explanation?

Mr. Callaghan: That is quite right. The hon. and learned Member is repeating what he has said in his Motion. I have already told the House this afternoon, when the hon. and learned Member was not present—I do not necessarily blame him for that, but if he intends to interrupt he might at least make sure what has been said—that I understand that a personal statement must be non-contentious, and I guarantee that my statement will be very contentious when it is made.
I do not intend to abuse the privileges of a personal statement in order to make a speech to which reply cannot be made at that time. If time is provided by the Leader of the House—and I think there is a very good case for saying that time ought to be provided for the discussion of a Motion of this nature, to which I understand some of my hon. Friends intend to put down an Amendment—I shall be happy indeed. No one could be more glad and more ready to discuss it.
I am bound to say that the other part of the speech which was made on the same occasion by Mr. Gibson Jarvie I most certainly would not be able to sustain now. He then said that credit facilities were denied to his company by the Capital Issues Committee, which, he said, smacked of Star Chamber procedure. I am sure he will not want to say that

about this Government, whatever he may have said about the last Government; for this Government have given him exceptional credit facilities and on his behalf are relaxing the hire purchase restrictions which they are not prepared to relax in respect of other commodities. So much for that.
I come to another question, and that is: What in the Minister's view—and here I should like to hear from him, and I am sure that he will have the permission of the House if he will reply—will be the effect of this Clause upon the Bill, and, indeed, upon the operation that is to be carried out? As I understand it, and I can summarise it in this way, there are now three ways of disposing of the assets of the profitable Road Haulage Executive undertaking, which is operating at a profit this year and is continuing to operate at a profit. They can either be sold as transport units, or companies can be formed and the shares sold, or they can be sold as chattels.
From what I have been able to make out so far, the Minister's general conception is that transport units shall be formed and sold to small men. He is not giving the small men any protection, and he is certainly giving no guarantee to the House against the formation of rings. The United Dominions Trust is quite capable, if it lends money to all these people and has a hand in these things, of gathering the financial strings together and effecting something pretty akin to a private monopoly in many parts of the country. There is no guarantee against that. That is apparently to be the general form and set up of the road haulage industry.
Only, apparently, in exceptional cases are companies to be formed. I put this to the Minister. Supposing that the Commission is faced with this dilemma of having on its hands a large number of vehicles which it cannot sell as private units, that is in groups of five, ten or whatever it may be, there are only two things which it can do. It can either sell them as chattels, in which case there is no goodwill of any business—they are just sold as second-hand lorries to whoever will purchase them at an auction sale or, alternatively, it can form companies.
Then it is for the Minister under subsection (6) to decide what can be done.


Subsection (6) says that the Minister may,
If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board … the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit….
I ask the Minister whether, in fact, in circumstances like that, he is going to insist upon these lorries being sold as chattels or whether he would not in those circumstances, irrespective of whether it was an exception or not, permit the Commission to form companies for the purpose of selling these units. It seems to me that the least he could do is to say that he is not going to adhere to his orthodox way of selling these as chattels—as mere second-hand vehicles at an auction market—if the Commission can get a better price by selling them as companies.
I ask the Minister to justify, if he will, his view that this formation of companies should be an exceptional matter. I ask him to consider the circumstance I have outlined, which is only one of many operations and circumstances, and say whether, in this circumstance, he does not think that the Commission should be free to form companies if they believe they are going to get the best price. If the Minister was really concerned about getting the best price he would not say that this was an exception; he would say that the formation of companies was to be the general rule, and that would ensure a better price than the mere breaking up of the Road Haulage Executive property into small units to be sold as small blocks.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the point that the Trust would lend money to people to purchase lorries, and he made reference to some sort of strings which would bring them back again under the control of the Trust. Is he suggesting that this Trust would apply special powers to break an agreement, even if the borrowers did not break the agreement? Surely no one would borrow on such terms.

Mr. Callaghan: I should not think that they would do so for a moment. Does the hon. Member know what are to be the terms of the agreement? Does the Minister know what are the terms of the

agreement with the United Dominions Trust because, if he does, the House would be very interested to hear them. I do not know, that is why I am making this point. The House has absolutely no guarantee that this cannot happen.
My next point is one which has been made by a number of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole)—who speaks tonight under very great personal difficulties; I hope he will soon feel better—made the point about the effect on the employees of this way of disposing of the Commission's assets. My hon. Friends the Members for Eccles, The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and others have made the same point.
As we get nearer the time when the Bill is to become law it must become clearer to all of us if we are in touch with road haulage men how bitterly and deeply they resent the break-up of the Road Haulage Executive. At first, many of them did not believe that the Government were going to be such fools, and even a few months ago a great many did not believe that this would happen, although they could see the axe swinging over their heads, but now that it has really come people are extremely concerned. I have had many instances of this, including a meeting with a number of lorry drivers in my constituency last Saturday. One of them told me that he was a Conservative but proposed to vote for me from now on. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many drivers were there?"] It was a deputation of four. One Conservative out of four is not bad, anyway.
I have today received a letter from a man employed in a British Road Service depot in East London who comments on a visit by some "flashily-dressed gentlemen" who tried to pump him about the number of employees and whether a profit was being made. That is interesting confirmation of a number of things that we know to be happening, for which the United Dominions Trust is responsible. I am not saying the Trust was responsible for this, because the man did not say so and he did not know who the persons were, but I have made it clear that the Trust is responsible for this, and I include one of its directors, and this has


never been denied, because it cannot be denied. The man said:
I must add that the feeling against denationalisation is very bitter in this depot. I can see that big trouble is coming in road transport, and at the moment we would rather smash the vehicles than let Churchill sell them.

Mr. Partridge: In view of all the charges of bad faith which have been made, I should like to know when the hon. Gentleman dictated that letter.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, but I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon his second speech as much as I did upon his maiden speech. That did not seem to be quite up to the standard.
The Minister must say something to us now about the effect of the break-up of the Road Haulage Executive and the disposal of its assets in this way upon the employees. He has not given us a very clear idea that he understands what this will mean. Between 60,000 and 70,000 employees of the Road Haulage Executive will lose their jobs. The Minister told us that he could not transfer them with the companies when they were sold or with the units. Even assuming that when the units are sold the men will find fresh employment, the Minister must realise the disturbance which is caused to a man who loses his job and does not know the terms on which he will go back, especially if he is transferred from a Road Haulage Executive, which has concluded trade union agreements which are satisfactory to him, to employment with a small man with perhaps four or five lorries who does not necessarily have the obligation to meet the trade union conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) said it was no use thinking that the Road Haulage Wages Board would look after 20,000 employees that did not come within the ambit of their powers.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He said 15,000.

Mr. Callaghan: I thought my hon. Friend said 20,000, but he is present and he can tell us what he said.

Mr. P. Morris: It was 15,000 to 20,000 of the administrative staff.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We were both right.

Mr. Callaghan: Apparently the Minister was right on one of the very few occasions during the course of this Bill. I am prepared to split the difference with him and make it 17,500. I heard one figure and the Minister heard another. Possibly, we both heard what we wanted to hear. He wanted the smaller figure and I wanted the larger one. It is between 15,000 and 20,000 road haulage employees who do not come under the Road Haulage Wages Board. What happens to them? They are going to lose their jobs and then be taken on again. What is wrong with that? The Minister has told us they are not going to be transferred to the new undertakings, so presumably they must lose their jobs and a large number of them will be reengaged. Is that not so? I do not know what was meant by the Minister's gesture of impatience.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will answer the hon. Member.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister says he is going to answer the point, but what I am saying is that these men would be transferred from trade union rates and conditions of service that have been agreed between the unions, particularly the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and the Road Haulage Executive, to small employers with four or five lorries who have not entered into any agreement with the Road Haulage Wages Board. Is there any guarantee at all that these men are to have even approximately the same conditions of service that they had under the Transport Commission? Of course, there can be no guarantee.
I do not believe that the Minister has genuinely understood this point, and I ask him to reply to it, because this is a serious matter to men who may be getting £8 or £9 a week under the present trade union agreement and who may find themselves transferred to a smaller employer who will tell them, "I will take you back and will pay you £6 a week." What is to prevent them doing that? The Minister must appreciate the importance of this matter.
From my own contacts with a number of these men they feel very deep anxiety about the future, and as this is about the last opportunity that the Minister has got of giving any reassurance about this


matter, I hope he will accept it and give these men some assurance. I know it is a sore point with them judging from my own correspondence, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have had letters about it which show that the subject is deeply troubling a great many people. I ask the Minister to refer to these matters in a further speech, for which I am sure the whole House will give him permission so that we may find out as much as we can before we finally part with this particular Clause.
In conclusion, I say that the breaking up of the Road Haulage Executive into companies as an exceptional measure is a bad feature of this Bill. We believe that if the Minister were going to dispose of them he should have disposed of them in the form of companies, at any rate as far as a great number of them is concerned. Instead, he has come down on the side of the company as an exceptional measure, and we hope that he will reconsider that matter and use the powers taken under this Clause to make it possible for the Commission to form these companies not merely as an exceptional measure but as a general measure so that the public can know that they are going to get the best possible price when these vehicles are sold, and so, incidentally, that the levy can be kept smaller than it would otherwise be.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will make a few observations. I had not intended to speak again as I made a speech of nearly half-an-hour in introducing this Lords Amendment, and I have replied to a number of issues raised in the course of the last three days when we have been considering the Lords Amendments. I hope I shall be allowed to say that the anxiety of the Opposition to prolong the debate on this one Lords Amendment, and its subsequent Amendments, to three full days, and not to reach any of the other points on the Order Paper, has led me to believe that it sprang from a feeling that, if the other issues were debated, the hollowness of their general charge would be demonstrated.
Anyhow they are now able to say, though I do not think many people would believe them, "Look at the large number of issues we have not been allowed to discuss." I say in advance that to spend

three days on a new Clause that was welcomed by their own spokesmen in another place—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never discussed here."]—and on which full information was given there and much advance information was given here —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and then to complain that there has been no opportunity to debate consequent Amendments is a piece of monumental hypocrisy.
As the Opposition have asked me to make a speech, I shall take the opportunity of reading something that I forgot to read when I spoke originally. I would refer hon. Members to the debate on the Report stage of the Bill on 4th February. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for having recognised that he was scarcely fair to me in saying that I had rejected this Amendment on the Report stage. This is what I said:
I have been urged by the Commission that it will help them in their own internal problems, and I am very anxious to do so.
I was speaking of the company structure.
Some difficulties yet remain to be settled if we are to decide to do this—
Incidentally my advisers and I were in almost daily consultation with the Commission right up to the time of consideration of the Bill by another place—
and I think the arguments are extremely strong and weighty. It will necessitate some rather complicated Amendments. The principle is simple. The Amendments may look formidable, but they will not be formidable save in words.
Every time hon. Gentlemen wave the Order Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) did a night or two ago, and say "Three and a half pages"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Be accurate."] I will be accurate. This is virtually the fifth day of the debate. There is another point of accuracy of which hon. Gentlemen opposite should be reminded. I had given them advance notice that the Amendments would look complicated and formidable, but that they would not be formidable save in words. I added:
In substance the machinery would be perfectly simple. If, as I hope, it is possible to introduce Amendments in another place, they will then come back to this House where we shall have a chance to consider them and their full implications.
Now we have had a chance—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have had three


Parliamentary days for debate, two complete ones and a large part of today, in considering this new Clause alone. I added:
They will not involve any great changes, certainly no changes of principle, but they will be an improvement in machinery which has been asked for from both sides of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1953: Vol. 510, c. 1935]
I welcomed the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey)—

Mr. Ellis Smith: And the maiden speech?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —despite the fact that those speeches were ridiculed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and subjected to a rather prim lecture by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am grateful to my hon. Friends for making it clear that in their view the purpose they had in mind has been, with Amendments, fulfilled and that they are glad to see those Amendments.
I know the House was interested to hear the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole), and it has been a matter of great regret to his Friends on both sides of the House that for so much of our debates he has been absent through illness. Because of our sympathy with his illness and our affection for himself, we were quite ready to listen to an even longer Second Reading speech than he made on this Lords Amendment, but I hope he will forgive me if in what I have to say I do not go in great detail into some of the general issues.
I will, however, deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. Member, and not least with the uncertainty in the minds of individual men, for whose welfare I am just as conscious and anxious as any hon. Member opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know what Members on the other side mean. How can they imagine that large numbers of my hon. Friends and myself are consistently returned to this House by enormous votes if they did not come in large part from the working class? If any hon. Member likes to come to my constituency and investigate on the spot, he would be welcome to do so.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said that we had tried to give the impression that we were meeting the arguments from both sides of the House and then began to whittle down what we were giving by a series of provisos and considerations. But we always made it plain that the purpose of the company structure was an alternative method of disposal which should not be allowed to frustrate the declared intention of the Government. That is why there were these considerations and provisos. Incidentally, the hon. Member was wrong in thinking that the limitation of 50 vehicles or 200 tons unladen weight would apply to the company structure. It will not do so, as has been said in the House at least twice.
The hon. Member for Eccles, who in his speech enlivened everybody by his plea that the Cabinet should be set free, raised among a number of other issues the question of the employees, and a number of other hon. Members also have raised this matter. I am glad to make a few more observations, although I have made them all before at the relevant stages of the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) knows that I have been particularly anxious and concerned about these problems.
We must not treat the situation as if those employed by the British Transport Commission never changed their employment. I make no charge against the Commission. I think they are very good employers, and I am certain that the best of private employers are just as good. The figures ought, however, to be remembered. The total employed by the Road Haulage Executive in January, 1951, was 68,491. The total dispensed with during the year was 23,045; that is to say, the Road Haulage Executive dispensed with 30 per cent. of their employees.

Mr. John Hynd: It was voluntary.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It does not do the Opposition any good, and it is not fair to private employers, to suggest that there is all that difference in security between working for a nationalised corporation and working for private industry.

Mr. Hynd: Does the Minister realise that there is a world of difference between


the normal wastage in an industry by people transferring from one job to another and some 25,000 people being dispensed with at one stroke?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The same thing has happened more or less two years running. It cannot be attributed, as some interjectors have suggested, solely or mainly to the fear of the Bill.
Of course, there is disturbance to anybody whose employer is going to change—we all know that. Most of us, I think, have noted the curious fact that the more Socialist one is, the more conservative one is about personal change. None the less, the overwhelming proportion of these men will, we hope and believe, be re-employed, and re-employed in jobs as good as those that they are now filling. If their position is worsened, there will be provisions for compensation, which I have explained in detail in the House and which the Government have improved in another place, in response to requests both from this House and from another place. It is one of the misfortunes that we have not been able to get on to do much that we could have done and that I have not been able to deal with points really touching the lives of the employees.
10.0 p.m.
I regret the disturbance caused to individuals and the uncertainty as to their future, even though I think that political pressure is being exerted to play on their natural fears. It is fair to remind hon. Members of the many thousands of small hauliers who not only lost their jobs but lost their businesses that they had taken pride in building up—[An HON. MEMBER: "They had compensation."] All right, they got compensation, but it must be a very material person—and most true Socialists are true materialists—to think that compensation is by itself adequate to make up for losing something which has formed one's life's work.
In reply to direct questions by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), the position will be as I said it would. When the companies are formed and before the units are sold, the employees will remain within the wages

structure agreed between the unions and the Commission. After that they will pass to the companies. The units will be sold and the employees will have the protection afforded under the Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938, and the Wages Councils Acts, 1945, and 1948, and Wages Regulation Orders made by the Minister of Labour after submission from the Road Haulage Wages Council. These wages councils do provide proper protection. If at any time improvements are needed the unions are powerful—rightly so—in our land. It is open to the unions to submit any opportunities or cases they may have for improvement in wages council machinery.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West made the point that 15,000 or 20,000 people would have their position worsened and they might not find jobs. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, with his glorious disregard for accuracy, said that they would lose their jobs. There is no possible case for arguing that they would lose their jobs. The greater proportion, we hope, will be absorbed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I must finish the argument. I submit to the hon. Member for Swansea, West, who is President of the Railway Clerks' Association—an office he has held since 1948—that there is a very powerful Transport Workers Salaried Staff association. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are the same."] I am perfectly aware of the connection and the similarity. I suggest to the hon. Member that he and his colleagues can be safely relied upon to use their position in the industrial negotiating machinery to protect the interests of any of their people whose conditions may be worsened.

Mr. P. Morris: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for giving way. As a matter of interest the Railway Clerks' Association and the Transport Workers Salaried Staff Association are one and the same. We divided our spheres of influence under the Transport Act, 1947. With all respect, he has missed a very important point which concerns the men who leave the service of the Road Haulage Executive and are employed by private employers. What will the Minister do to prevail on those private employers to maintain comparable conditions of service with those we have been able to obtain from the Road Haulage Executive?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The duty and opportunity will be with the union to organise that with the employers concerned. I cannot imagine that the union would welcome direct interference by the Government in a matter which has always been held to be one for negotiation between employers and unions. I was quite aware that the two unions were the same. I am sorry my joke fell rather lamely. It is as if I were addressing the Minister of Civil Aviation in my present capacity, but no doubt a sense of humour will return as we get nearer to half-past ten.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) welcomed this Amendment and I am very grateful to him. He asked me a question and apologised for the fact that he would not be here to hear the answer. He asked in regard to the question of the sale of shares in stages and suggested that it would have been prudent for the Government to have accepted that Opposition Amendment. I agree that the arguments are fairly evenly balanced: there are arguments in favour of the Opposition Amendment on that issue; but I think that the arguments the other way really win the day. Quite considerable difficulties of fixing a price for the shares and assessing the capital loss would undoubtedly arise, and in our view it is better to have the sale in one parcel, as has been provided for in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) made two distinct charges. He said that we were being urged to adopt this particular procedure because we feared that we should not be able to sell the road haulage assets. I can assure him that that played no part whatever; we were anxious to dispose of the assets in an orderly way, the Commission had assured us that this would help them, and that is one of the main reasons we followed that advice. The hon. Member said that only the large people would be able to buy the larger companies. That is why we are not laying down any rigid number of companies, large or small, that should be provided for.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, in winding up this debate for the Opposition, return again to the charge about the United Dominions Trust.

Mr. Poole: As the Minister has been dealing with the selling of the companies,

would this not be an opportune time to deal with the point of what guarantee there is that there will be no merger of companies?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member had not, unhappily, been away at an earlier date he would have heard me speaking about that. I was asked that previously on the question of transport units; the same considerations apply in regard to companies. There is no assurance that there will not be mergers after purchase. There never has been, and the Government have never pretended that it would be either desirable or possible to prevent such a development, but the whole history of road haulage runs counter to that idea.
I have constantly quoted in this House figures that have never been challenged, that there were only 79 companies with more than 50 vehicles and only 22 with more than 100 at the time of nationalisation. The bigger companies were taken over first, and there were some 14,000 vehicles in those taken over. The remainder, about 30,000, can safely be assumed to have been, in large part anyhow, composed of smaller units; it has been suggested that the average was between three and four vehicles. I do not think it fair to say that a danger now lies ahead which did not exist before. Indeed, I believe that one of the questions that the licensing authorities were entitled to ask an applicant was, "Have you a licence elsewhere?" It was a practice not much used because it was found that the social danger which had caused provision for that question to be put in the Act did not arise.

Mr. D. Jones: Will the Minister deny these facts—that between 1938 and 1946 the number of A licence vehicles dropped by 7 per cent. but the number of separate licence holders dropped by more than 30 per cent.?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member may well be right, but I am afraid that I have not got the figures here and I am not in a position either to challenge or confirm them. Precisely what moral the hon. Member is drawing from that I am not quite sure, because we have the evidence before us which confronted the last Government when they nationalised road haulage.
Finally the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East raised again the question of the United Dominions Trust. He tried to find some inconsistency between various statements made by Her Majesty's Ministers. When he was assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with the Minister of Transport he expressed surprise. I must indeed, I suppose, allow with tolerance for that sort of surprise, because of his own experience of his own Administration, but the suggestion that Ministers do not agree is one which it is difficult for this Government to comprehend.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister going to explain the difference between Lord Selkirk and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am coming to that. If I read only the last few lines of what Lord Selkirk said, it is because the other sentences can be read in HANSARD and I have no wish to mislead the House. The last sentence reads:
This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords 26th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 328.]
The hon. Gentleman twisted that to suggest that the noble Lord said that any facilities were to rank equally with dollars for exports or facilities for export. All the noble Lord said was that just as a particular line of business or export might get dollars—by way of illustration. He said nothing whatever about priorities, and to take from that the assumption that the Government do not regard the export drive as being the first consideration is wholly unwarranted. I cannot do better than read again the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which apparently the hon. Gentleman claims to find some variation:
The Government have not advised the banks to give the same priority to loans for the purchase of these lorries as to loans for the export trade. They have advised the banks that it would be consistent with Government policy that loans for such purposes should be made in suitable cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 642.]
There is no conflict whatever between what my noble Friend and what my right hon. Friend said a few days ago.
The hon. Gentleman turned, as he was fully entitled to do, to the statement I made on hire purchase relaxation. I was

not attempting to foreshadow what would be in the Statutory Instrument. All 1 was concerned about was to search my memory in every possible way and to be certain as I can that anything that could be held to be remotely connected in the general sense with these proposals would be mentioned in this House in advance of it appearing here in the normal way. The purpose of that, and I hope it will be successful, was that offensive insinuations would be even less deserved than before.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me what would happen if the Commission were left with vehicles on their hands which they could not sell as units. Would they be allowed to form them into companies or must they be obliged to sell them as advertised? I do not know where he got that assumption. There is nothing whatever to stop them forming companies. The time limit has gone from the Bill, as he may not have noticed. They can form them into companies or sell them as units in whatever way would seem best to the Commission and the Disposal Board. It is our belief that this Amendment which I have moved will be a supplementary means of achieving the clear intention of the Government.

Mr. H. Morrison: I had thought it would be a good thing if we divided at this stage. On the other hand, I am not clear why we should spend the last quarter of an hour in the Division Lobby when we have this severe Guillotine imposed upon us.
The Minister finished with a reference to the unhappy things which have happened in relation to the United Dominions Trust. I have been listening carefully to the Economic Secretary. He was careful not to identify himself with the language of the Minister of Transport that the action of the Trust as claimed by the Chairman had full authority and support—as is boasted by the Minister of Transport—but I did not think that language applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does it specifically have the full weight and support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That is a straight question.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: What has the approval of the Government as a whole has the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Morrison: That is not the question—the full support and approval, the full authority and approval. Anyway, can the Economic Secretary to the Treasury answer "Yes" or "No" whether the Chancellor associates himself with the precise language used by the Minister of Transport? Will he tell us that?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is making such mischief about this, but the answer is "Yes."

Mr. Morrison: So, first of all, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for the Colonies has quite enough trouble on his hands without barging into the United Dominions Trust. I only wish sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman had got the full approval of the united Dominions and Commonwealth behind him. Let him not walk into this.
I would remind the Economic Secretary that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East asked repeatedly whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer identified himself with the language of the Minister of Transport, but it was obvious that the Economic Secretary was doing his best to evade it.

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling  indicated dissent.

Mr. Morrison: I then come along and ask the same question. He said it was the decision of the Government as a whole, still evading the precise language of the Minister of Transport. I ask him again whether he accepted the same language as the Minister of Transport, and the hon. Gentleman said it is clear that the Chancellor must have approved. This is not the answer.
Then, there was some coming and going by the Parliamentary Private Secretary behind so that the Economic Secretary could get, not the authority of the Chancellor, but, presumably, the authority of an officer of the Chancellor, and, lastly, after all this cross-examination, which the learned Attorney-General will recognise as very good cross-examination—I do not want to provoke the hon. and learned Gentleman—at last, the hon. Gentleman says "Yes," and identifies the Chancellor with the language of the Minister of

Transport. The House will see that the Front Bench is in a state of shuffle and evasion, and, as for a united Front Bench, there was no united front until they were forced back to the issue and had to answer "Yes" or "No."
The Minister has said that he was now going back to the statement of the noble Lord, who is a member of the Government, the Earl of Selkirk, in the House of Lords on 26th March, as to credit facilities. This is what the noble Lord said:
My Lords, perhaps I might answer one point that has been raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He asked whether any privileged class had been created. That is not so. What the Treasury have done is this. They have informed the banks that they consider this—that is, the action under this Bill—a suitable subject for credit in the national interest. This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 328.]
What does this mean, and what is the good of denying what my hon. Friend alleges? The question was put as to whether this represented the policy of the Government—although my hon. Friend could not put it in that form, but put it in substantially the same terms as those employed by Lord Selkirk in another place, when he was asking whether they would reverse the policy. The answer was:
No, Sir. The general priorities which the banks have been asked to apply in accordance with the Government's credit policy remain unchanged. They have been told that the provision of credit for the purchase of assets from the Road Haulage Executive, in accordance with the Bill now before Parliament, will be regarded as consistent with Government policy. It must, of course, be left to the banks themselves to decide whether to provide facilities for individual customers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 312.]
That is a very different story from what was said by Lord Selkirk in the House of Lords. This statement is bad enough, but it is a distinctly milder version. It is merely to the effect that the Government will regard such a procedure as consistent with Government policy, and then it is left with the banks.
But what different language from the positive approval and authority that lifted this business right up to the high priority of exports for dollars and a particular line of business. It means that the Government are affording to the United Dominions Trust, and, I gather,


certain other organisations as well, credit facilities ranking equal with exports for dollars. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But it is said by Lord Selkirk, and it has not been repudiated. He said, "This is common practice." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members will listen, I will tell them. After all, we have not got long, and I should have thought that having done what they have today, it would not be a good finish if hon. Members opposite prevented the final spokesman of the Opposition from saying what he has to say. But they can if they like. This is what was said:
This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 328.]
That is giving this a very high priority, and, in our judgment, it is giving it a high priority because the Government wish to give particularly favourable treatment to a procedure of de-nationalisation. Why did they want to step in and give particular credit facilities to the process of de-nationalisation and to undertakings which are providing finance for these businesses and for the purchases? Moreover, they have relaxed the regulations about hire purchase all in the interest of this business.
The Government are playing about with their own regulations and orders of various provisions, both in respect of credit facilities and in respect of hire purchase. They are giving these special facilities as an act of political partisanship for the furtherance of their party political policy and in the interest of their friends outside who helped the Government at the General Election. They are departing from the fair and impartial administration of orders and regulations which ought not to be administered in a partisan spirit or for particular friends of the Government. That is what they are doing, both as regards credit and hire purchase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) raised the question of the unions under this Clause. I agree with him that they are going to be in an un-fortunate position because, when the property passes from the ownership of the Commission to private ownership, there is no guarantee whatever that proper trade union machinery for negotiation will be recognised by the new employers. There

is an obligation on the Commission as regards property that remains in their possession to give the same facilities for trade union negotiation as obtained under the 1947 Act. That is my impression. There is no such facility as regards property which passes under the Bill from the public authority to private owners.
Therefore my hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that the Bill contains no provision whereby there will be proper trade union recognition and negotiation. It is well known by my hon. Friends here who are in the trade union movement that in the road haulage industry before nationalisation the machinery for collective bargaining was exceedingly imperfect. Indeed, some of the firms would not give facilities for collective bargaining at all. So bad was the machinery that whereas on the railways and certain other undertakings comprised in the Transport Commission the Commission and the unions were content with the machinery of trade union negotiation, in the case of the Road Haulage Executive, because of the imperfect nature of the machinery for trade union negotiation, the Executive agreed with the trade unions to set up a special, direct machinery of negotiation.
That could be done when the public authority took over from private industry, but the process is now the other way about, the public authority undertaking being broken up and scattered among a mass of private firms. Therefore there is no guarantee that the men will retain their jobs or that there will be effective trade union negotiation. Indeed, we shall all be very lucky if some difficulty does not arise in this dangerous process.
The Minister, like the Leader of the House, has argued that the Opposition have used up unnecessary time in consideration of the Lords Amendments, and particularly on the new Clause which is before us, I would ask hon. Members to read the Clause and to note the numerous issues that it raises, the many restrictions that would be imposed upon the Commission and the irritating reservations and restrictions indicated in the Clause, as well as the considerable number of specific matters that are dealt with in it. Suppose that the Clause had been dealt with in the ordinary way. The Minister could have brought it in on the Report stage in the House of Commons if he had wanted to. He says he told the


House earlier on what he was going to do, but that amounted to very nearly nothing. There was nothing in that. Suppose the Clause had been added to the Bill on the Committee stage, it would have to have had a Second Reading. It could have been examined in Committee on Amendments, and it would have been subject to Amendment on Report stage before it went through.
The new Clause was started in another place. It is a big Clause, but it comes here without any Second Reading, with no Committee stage and no Report stage, and we have to deal with it as best we can by way of Amendments to the Lords Amendments. [An HON. MEMBER: "You had three days."] Even if it is three days, which I am not admitting, this is a big

Clause, equivalent to many an Act of Parliament, and it affects the livelihood of thousands of honest, decent British workpeople. It was right that it should be properly examined. Therefore, it does seem to me that it is utterly unreasonable that when this new Clause comes here for the first time from another place—

It being Half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, put the Question that the Lords Amendments, so far as not already agreed to or disagreed to, and the Amendment to the Bill (Schedule 4, page 50, leave out lines 22 and 23) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Lennox-Boyd, be agreed to.

The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 276.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hay, John


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crouch, R. F.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Heath, Edward


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crowder, Petrie (Ruislip—Northwood)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hill, Or. Charles (Luton)


Baker, P. A. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Baldock, L.-Cmdr. J. M.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baldwin, A. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Banks, Col. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Barber, Anthony
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hollis, M. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Baxter, A. B.
Donner, P. W.
Holt, A. F.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hope, Lord John


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Drayaon, G. B.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Drewe, C.
Horobin, I. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fell, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hurd, A. R.


Black, C. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bowen, E. R.
Fort, R.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Foster, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jennings, R.


Braine, B. R.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollak)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gammans, L. D.
Joynson-Hicks. Hon. L. W.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kaberry, D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Keeling, Sir Edward


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Kerr, H. W.


Bullard, D. G.
Godber, J. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lambton, Viscount


Burden, F. F. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Warden)
Gower, H. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Campbell, Sir David
Graham, Sir Fergus
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Carr, Robert
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Leather, E. H. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimond, J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Channon, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Churchill, Rt, Hon. Sir Winston
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lindsay, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Linstead, H. N.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Colegate, W. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)




Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Low, A. R. W.
Osborne, C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Partridge, E.
Stony, S.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Studholme, H. G.


McAdden, S. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Summers, G. S.


McCallum, Major D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Suteliffe, Sir Harold


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


McKibbin, A. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Thomas, Lestle (Canterbury)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. laid (Enfield, W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thompson Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Redmayne, M.
Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roes-Davies, W. R.
Tilney, John


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Renton, D. L. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Turton, R. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Markham, Major S. F.
Robson-Brown, W.
Vane, W- M. F.


Marlowe. A. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Vosper, D. F.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wade, D. W.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maude, Angus
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Maudling, R.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Mellor, Sir John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Molson, A. H. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wellwood, W.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Shepherd, William
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wills, G.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Snadden, W. MeN.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Soames, Capt. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.
York, C.


Nutting, Anthony
Speir, R. M.



Oakshott, H. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Odey, G. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, K.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Sir Herbert Butcher.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stevens, G. P.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Callaghan, L. J.
Fernyhough, E.


Albu, A. H.
Carmichael, J.
Fienburgh, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Finch, H. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Chapman, W. D
Follick, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Chetwynd, G. R
Foot, M. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clunie, J.
Forman, J. C.


Baird, J.
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Balfour, A.
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Barnes, Rt. Hen. A. J.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bartley, P.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Bellenger, Rt. Han. F. J
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gibson, C. W.


Bence, C. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Glanville, James


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gooch, E. G.


Benson, G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Beswick, F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Grey, C. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, David (Rether Valley)


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bottomley Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hale, Leslie


Bowden, H. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bowles, F. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hamilton, W. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hannan, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hargreaves, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Brawn, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hastings, S.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hayman, F. H.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Herbison, Miss M.







Hewitson, Capt. M
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Smith, Norman (Nettingham, S.)


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Snow, J. W.


Holman, P.
Morris, Perey (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, J. D.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Nally, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Swingler, S. T


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oswald, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jeger, Dr. Santos (St. Pancras, S.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pannell, Charles
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thornton, E.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, J.
Timmons, J.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Peart, T. F
Tomney, F.


Keenan, W.
Plummer, Sir Charles
Turner-Samuels, M.


Kenyon, C.
Poole, C. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, E.
Usborne


King, Dr. H.M.
Porter, G.
Viant, S.P.


Kinley, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, H. W.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Weitzman, D.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lewis, Arthur
Rankin, John
West, D. G.


Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Logan, D.G.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


McGhee, H. G.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McGovern, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wigg, George


McInnes, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilkins, W. A.


McLeavy, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willey, F. T.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Ross, William
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Royle, C.
William, Ronald (Wigan)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
William, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Manuel, A. C.
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Marquand,Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Winterbottom Richard (Brightside)


Mason, Rey
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wyatt, W. L.


Messer, F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Yates, V. F.


Mikardo, Ian
Skeffington, A. M.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)



Monslow, W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moody, A. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the Amendments which I have indicated previously as involving questions of Privilege, I will cause a Special Entry to be made in the Journals.

Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important to know about those questions of Privilege, which we have not had any opportunity of discussing on their merits as we went along. May we know which are the questions of Privilege about which you wish to cause a Special Entry to be made, in case we wish to suggest any additions thereto, and the reasons that are to be given? We ought to know.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendments concerned are: page 15, line 34; page 16, line 45; page 18, line 11; page 27, line 13; page 46, line 45; page 47, line 8; and page 47, line 34. I can give the right hon. Member a copy of these later on if he desires it.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry to bother you, Sir, but you will appreciate that we have been subjected to a pretty shameful gag on this business. Therefore, we have not been able to discuss this point of Privilege, or even to mention it as we went along. It would be useful to us, Sir, and right to the House, if you would be


so good as to indicate the reasons for regarding these as Privilege Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I have not got them all by me, but in general they all involve, directly or indirectly, some slight charge on the Exchequer. It is quite common for the House to agree to Lords Amendments which do that, generally for the convenience of the House, but in those cases, in order to prevent the matter being overlooked, it is usual to make a Special Entry, and I will see that it is done in due course.

Mr. Callaghan: May I add with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is the case, is it not, that at least the last two Amendments which you read out make a substantial difference to the charge? One is in connection with a levy and the other involves a sum of £2 million. In those circumstances, would you not regard those as something to which special attention should be paid?

Mr. Speaker: I will pay attention to what the hon. Member has said and will consider it. If I consider it necessary to make a Special Entry of a different character, I will do so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The logic of that statement is that the Lords have intervened in a question of finance and prevented the elected representatives of the people from discussing it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may put what construction he likes upon it. No doubt there will be various opinions in the House.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING MACHINERY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Studholme.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I originally sought this debate on agricultural marketing machinery because I felt the point had been reached when such a discussion might be useful. The developments in the last few days involving the rejection of the Apples and Pears Marketing Scheme makes such a discussion desirable. The rejection of that scheme is a very serious matter. There were special considerations about that scheme and the rejection of it, but the fact remains that we on this side of the House regard producer marketing schemes as an integral part of the Government's agricultural policy. This second and by far the largest scheme to be produced under the 1949 Act has been decisively rejected. That raises a big question mark over the whole future of organised marketing.
There will be inquests in several places. There have already been inquests in the Press. There will be inquests at Bedford Square, no doubt, and in the Ministry of Agriculture, and there should be a brief public inquest in this House. There would seem to me to be two possible verdicts arising out of this decision. One is that the producer-marketing schemes have been condemned; that the farmer should be free; that there should be no more restrictions of this sort and that producer-marketing schemes should be abandoned. That is the verdict which some have come to—I think prematurely. The second is to ask what went wrong with this scheme; why did it fail and what are the lessons to be learned?
I reject the first alternative. To accept the idea that producer-marketing schemes are now condemned and cannot continue is to accept a complete vacuum in this important section of agricultural policy. The alternative, as I see it, is not between marketing schemes and freedom for the farmer, but between the Ministry of Food and marketing schemes for individual commodities; between State control and organisation by the industry for itself. We come, then, to the point of what went wrong with this scheme.
Perhaps I should declare at this stage that I have no commercial interest whatever in this scheme, but, having a number of constituents who are keenly interested in its progress, I have followed it closely and I have some observations to make. I do not seek to over-simplify what occurred, but I think the opposition to this scheme may be put into two categories. There was opposition to the scheme itself and opposition to the methods used to put the scheme across.
Regarding the opposition to the scheme itself, I would say that there are undeniably elements in the industry opposed to all forms of marketing. We may disagree with them to that extent, but I would say there are not sufficient of them to obtain the rejection of this scheme or any other scheme. They alone were not sufficient to throw this scheme out. Speaking with a fair idea of what was in the minds of the opponents of this scheme, I would say it was not the idea of a marketing scheme, but the very extensive powers given to the prospective board, with a very dubious return.
The opposition centred upon the seventh section of the marketing scheme dealing with powers of the Board, of which some of us know a good deal already. In that part there is nothing particularly new. It was sanctioned in principle when we considered the Acts of 1931, 1933 and 1949. The fact remains that the powers given to this particular board were immense. There are two particular examples in Clauses 77 and 81, both of which I consider extensions of dubious principles, to say the least of it. The first concerns the inspection of premises, and the second the disciplinary committee. There is a justifiable mistrust of giving a right of entry to anyone not answerable to this House. The second point is not new in this House perhaps, but it is new to this Government.
When this scheme was first debated here I intervened to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, if the scheme was statutory, instead of a disciplinary committee, such matters of discipline could not be referred to the courts. I am bound to say I still ask that question, to which I think a number of those concerned with this scheme would very much like to see an answer. In that respect the industry has perhaps been more vigilant in the cause of freedom

than we were in that debate. Clauses 67 and 68 also give very considerable powers.
The big growers have been blamed for the rejection of this scheme in at least one quarter, "The Times" newspaper. They felt most strongly that there is a danger of eliminating cheap fruit from the market, which is not a part of their stock in trade. Many of them are most anxious to see that, in that respect, the consumer gets a fair deal. They fear that if the consumer does not get a fair deal, the consequences for the whole industry will be unfortunate. They do not wish to see the best or medium fruit priced at a level which would be scarcity value. On those grounds alone I support the attitude of many of the big growers, speaking not in their own interests but, as they see it, in the interests of the industry and above all of the consumers and that should be stressed because the objection raised against many of these schemes is that the consumers' interest will be lost.
Summarising that particular criticism, I say all these powers of the board should be reviewed. I do not wish to criticise or suggest amendments to the Acts of 1931, 1933 and 1949, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order if I did so. It is not necessary to do so because these Acts are permissive and may be allowed to stand as they are. They are an umbrella under which various schemes can be framed, and the powers of these schemes can vary according to requirements. They can be extensive for big monopolistic schemes such as milk marketing schemes, perhaps involving the whole run of commerce from buying and selling, right up to distribution. There is, I know, a tendency in some quarters to say that discipline is needed in these schemes if sabotage is to be avoided. I believe that is wrong, and it is clear that, if a scheme is invested with too much power, it can be rejected and all is lost. Therefore, a balance must be struck.
I must add a word or two about the methods used to put this scheme through. The arrangements were in the hands of the National Farmers' Union, rightly recognised by the Government as representative of the industry, and I gladly pay my tribute to the thoroughness with which they did their job. Possibly,


some may think, they were too thorough. Certainly, they considered the scheme a good one, and gave it the weight of their not inconsiderable propaganda machine, as they were fully entitled to do. It should be remembered that the scheme was on the stocks—lost in dust—for two years, and they found it necessary to remind people what it was all about.
As sometimes occurs in our own profession, the weight of propaganda on the one side led to a considerable weight of counter-propaganda on the other side. Indeed, that led to the first serious snag, which may affect other schemes, and that was the inadequacy of the machinery for objectors to the scheme to object before the poll was taken. Objections are like steam, the more one suppresses it, the more explosive it becomes, and in this case the objections became very explosive.
I do not want to exacerbate matters by making unnecessary observations on the conduct of either side in this dispute, but I am bound to say that, at times, though no doubt under provocation, the language of certain of the sponsors—the National Farmers' Union—was ill-advised, not because it was unfair or misleading, but because it simply added fuel to the flames already burning in the breasts of the opposition. It is all very well to say, as they did, that the growers were looking a gift horse in the mouth; what the growers wanted to do was to inspect the teeth of the gift horse, and that, I think, was fair enough.
They were also unwise, I think, to exaggerate the effect the scheme might have on regulating imports. That card was worth four and was used as an ace. In the original brief, the union said:
No section of the agricultural industry can hope to make effective representation to the Government on import regulations unless it be well organised and takes active steps to improve both the quality and marketing of home products.
That was an irreproachable statement, and they should not have gone beyond it at any time. Some speeches, however, did go beyond it and were rightly challenged.
In these lively preliminaries, which should not have involved more than a healthy difference of opinion, one particular difficulty arose, of which the hon. Gentleman who is to reply is aware, but

which I must mention. Under Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act of 1931 and Section 80 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, the provisional board was sent a list of producers by the Ministry of Agriculture, and this was to be used for the compilation of the register. It is fair to say that opponents of the scheme allege—I stress allege-that this list was used by the N.F.U. and certain county branches for canvassing and for the distribution to county branches of their own propaganda. Whether that is true or not, it stimulated a desire among opponents of the scheme, organised into the Independent Fruit Growers' Committee, for like facilities, and that was fair enough.
These facilities were refused by the Minister, by the board and by the N.F.U. The Independent Fruit Growers' Committee took legal opinion, and were told that, under Section 80 (c) of the 1947 Act, such information could be given. Broadly, the Section says that information can be given to any person to whom the Minister considers disclosure would be in the public interest. Here we come to our old friend, the definition of the public interest, into which I shall not enter. The independent growers were subsequently offered by the board a list of the names as they were compiled from the initial register and as the names came in. This was not very satisfactory as the names came in slowly. Moreover, it left uncovered the main desire of the opponents of the scheme to impress upon everyone the importance of registering, for otherwise they could not vote. Many growers thought that by throwing the form into the wastepaper basket they exempted themselves from the scheme. That was not so.
I do not want to argue the rights and wrongs of this, but such doubts on that particular phase of the scheme must not arise again. Steps must be taken to ensure that. The rights of the sponsors of, and of the objectors to, a scheme must be put beyond doubt. Failure to do this placed the Minister of Agriculture at one point in an embarrassing situation. It left with the opponents of the scheme a sense of injustice, and was a major factor in the rejection of the scheme. I think it would be well if the compiling of the register could in future be done by an independent body having no vested interest in the promotion of the scheme. The manner of voting was not highly satisfactory. At one point the prospective


chairman of the board said at Chelmsford that the voting papers would be in sealed envelopes sent to an independent body and not seen by the board.
I have here a voting paper sent to the board which was incorrectly filled in. It was returned to the man who had sent it by the board and he was requested to send it back to the board when he had Corrected it. Clearly, voting should not be conducted on those lines. An elector who had a ballot paper returned to him by a Tory agent to be corrected would be right in thinking that some democratic principle had been infringed.
The sooner this controversial and even bitter campaign—at least two writs were issued during the course of it—can be forgotten, the better for the industry. But I feel bound to touch upon these points which arose, because they bear heavily upon the future. It is undesirable that the much bigger schemes for livestock, wheat, eggs, and so on, which are now in preparation, should be subjected to the hazards which this scheme faced. In the inquest going on I hope there will be a minimum of recrimination and the maximum of heart-searching.
The industry owes the National Fanners' Union a great deal. It did its best to put forward what it thought was in the best interests of the industry. I have sympathy with its belief that a minimum of discipline was necessary. The question is, what is the minimum of discipline required in a scheme of this kind? It may be found to differ in every case. That minimum of organisation and discipline, that happy mean, must be found. That I think, will be the crux of future marketing schemes. I hope to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the mean will be sought.

11.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on securing the Adjournment and making such an interesting and valuable speech about this difficult subject of agricultural marketing. It is both complex and important, and is likely to be more so. I agree that the campaign for the Apple and Pear Marketing Scheme has certainly raised new problems. The result of the poll itself, with its outcome

of failure for the promoters, has raised more problems.
My right hon. Friend recognises the importance of these problems. Even before the poll, my right hon. Friend instituted in the Department a review to consider the existing policy and procedure and what possible solutions could be found to the problems which had been posed during the campaign. It is obviously much too early for me to speak in more than very general terms about what this review is beginning to show, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hop. Friend attaches great weight to the criticisms which my hon. Friend has just ventilated, and considers, as I do, that it is most important that the initial poll should be held in conditions accepted as fair and reasonable by everybody.
We are most concerned to see that equal canvassing facilities, both for opponents and promoters, should be provided, and in so far as the Marketing Acts can so provide we hope we shall secure those conditions. This problem of providing the names and addresses of producers is quite a delicate and complex affair. I discovered on a little research into the beginnings of the 1931 Act that the original proposition was to require a compulsory registration of all producers of the commodity concerned. When the Bill reached the Floor of the House, hon. Members felt that the provision requiring compulsory registration with penalties for not so registering was too stringent and, after long and earnest discussion, the House finally amended it to its present form.
It was a compromise, and like many compromises it was not entirely perfect, the form being that the Minister was required to give the producer board the names and addresses from the agricultural returns. This arrangement has worked without criticism up till now for about 20 years, but, obviously, there are weaknesses, and, of course, this campaign has shown them up. The provision originally intended that the opponents of the scheme should be supplied only from the register as compiled. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said, that the 1947 Act allows my right hon. Friend to disclose the names and addresses that he has in the agricultural returns, but he


must satisfy himself that he is doing so in the public interest.
The difficulty in this particular context is that these names and addresses are returned by farmers in the quarterly returns required by law. They are given confidentially, and they have considerable commercial value. My right hon. Friend's difficulty is how to identify an official opposition. It would clearly not be right to disclose these names and addresses to anybody who asks for them and says, "I am an opponent of the scheme." The difficulty is to know how to identify an official opposition.
I cannot say more on the subject except that it is receiving earnest consideration in the Department, and that, in due course, my right hon. Friend will consider what is the best solution we can reach in the matter.

Mr. Gerald Williams: What does my hon. Friend mean by "commercial value"? I cannot see any objection to giving them to anybody. What commercial value will it be to them?

Mr. Nugent: The commercial value I should have thought was obvious. To anybody who wishes to circularise particular classes of producer to sell them one thing or another, the names and addresses are very valuable. My right hon. Friend must be extremely careful before he discloses them.
I will proceed to points on which there is more daylight. An improvement could be made by lengthening the interval between the publication of the scheme and moving it in the House. That would give hon. Members and the general public a chance to be better acquainted with it. Secondly, an improvement could be made by lengthening the period between the completion of the register and the date of the poll, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said the other day. This second improvement would not, of course, meet the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford about the unregistered producer. That is a problem that we still have to contend with.
Both those improvements are receiving sympathetic consideration in our review, and in due course we will see what we can do along these lines to improve the

machinery. The Government could not continue to be responsible if there appeared to be unfairness. I am not commenting either way on the question my hon. Friend has asked, whether the result might have been prejudiced by any unfairness which has arisen. The National Farmers' Union would not wish to be associated with a procedure which appeared to be unfair. We should try to find the best solution we can, but it is not easy.
As regards propaganda, it would not be right or proper for me to comment upon the propaganda on either side. Both sides went to work in a very vigorous fashion, and as in most campaigns, even a General Election, the truth was sometimes presented in rather unexpected forms. However, that is not my concern, though it is right to say that the application form for registration that had to be sent out by the promoters, the information attached to which came in for a certain amount of criticism, was fair and reasonable and well within the terms of the 1931 Act, which gave the promoters the power to attach such information and such other particulars as the board thinks fit. The rest of the propaganda by leaflet was sent out later on, quite distincly from the actual registration form. That is as it should be. The whole process of polling must also be looked at, and seen to be as it should be.
With regard to the powers of the board, in the last two or three minutes remaining I sympathise with the point that they appear in some respects to be restrictive and dictatorial, but the safeguards given by the Act are pretty considerable. Firstly, there is the consumers' council to protect the consumer interest, and the committee of investigation presided over by a lawyer which receives complaints. Under the 1949 Act, the Minister appoints members to a board, not less than two and a maximum of one-fifth. There is the advisory committee which consists of trade interests, which must be consulted before the use of the restrictive powers. Then there is in this scheme a provision that the board must notify the Minister before the use of restrictive powers, which is a pretty considerable safeguard for consumer, trader and producer. Producers have a substantial influence; they have the last word.
I have not time to say more tonight on this subject, but I do assure the House that we are earnestly looking at the whole of it, with regard to both procedure and policy, and I hope my hon. Friend will feel reassured that there is a good prospect that we shall get an improvement in the future.

11.15 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I have listened with the greatest interest to my hon. Friend's reply, which, I think, has allayed some of the misgivings we have had about the method in which this scheme was put across. I should like to make one point arising out of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said. He rather

suggested that it was only the big growers who were concerned about the proposals in the scheme. Certainly in my own constituency it was the small growers who were most anxious and it was the larger ones who were most in favour. I do not know how they voted, but that would be a fair summing up. It is important that we should realise that the small grower is rather more helpless than the large one very often—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.